W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > December 2007

Re: ISSUE-119: names lengthComputable and total

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:54:49 -0800
Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9A1533C9-45E8-4C5B-91C6-FA8D9F752D40@apple.com>
To: Jean-Yves Bitterlich <Jean-Yves.Bitterlich@Sun.COM>


On Dec 10, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Jean-Yves Bitterlich wrote:

>
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ikivo have told me that they also implemented already with the  
>>> existing event names, and would write to say so.
>>>
>>> I am therefore resolving this issue by not changing the names.
>>
>> I don't think the JSR objection is very strong, since JSR-280 says:
>>
>> "Note  Note that MouseWheelEvent and ProgressEvent are newly  
>> included in the W3C DOM3 draft specification and have not yet gone  
>> through the W3C public review.  These W3C specifications are  
>> therefore to be considered as work in progress. There may be some  
>> modifications to these event types in the JSR280 Maintenance  
>> Release to ensure alignment with the DOM3 Event types."
> This clause has been added in respect to the agreement between W3C  
> and Sun/JSR-280 given the current state of the related W3C  
> specifications.

Sure, and I think we need to respect the spirit and not just the  
letter of that agreement. It seems like a bad idea to freeze W3C specs  
in very early development just because a faster-moving standards  
process copies them.

>> In general I don't think we want to set a precedent of locking in  
>> bad names in Editor's Drafts without a compelling reason. An  
>> implementation alone is not much reason, there would have to be  
>> significant content depending on it.
> agreed. However, JSR-280 is Final Release: i.e. a Reference  
> Implementation (RI) as well as a Test and Compatibility Kit (TCK)  
> are available and licensed/licensable; Moreover a development kit   
> is also available and compliant.
> This looks compelling enough ... too me :-)


What would look compelling to me is web content depending on the  
specific names. That's more important than whether someone shipped an  
implementation.

I'll admit that method naming isn't the biggest issue. But it seems  
like bad precedent to start giving weight to external standards that  
copy very early stage W3C standards, as this subverts the W3C's own  
standards process, which runs by different rules than the Java  
Community Process.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 10 December 2007 16:55:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:59 GMT