W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > February 2008

Re: ElementTraversal comments

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:59:57 -0500
Message-ID: <47C48BDD.7020200@w3.org>
To: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

Hi, Ian-

Ian Hickson wrote (on 2/26/08 3:42 PM):
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Doug Schepers wrote:
>> > > > 
>> > > > * I don't understand "A User Agent may implement similar 
>> > > > interfaces in other specifications, but such implementation is not 
>> > > > required for conformance to this specification, if the User Agent 
>> > > > is designed for a minimal code footprint." I suggest dropping this 
>> > > > sentence.
>> > > 
>> > > That's an odd request.  A better suggestion might be to clarify the 
>> > > sentence, since I wouldn't have put it in if I didn't think the 
>> > > point needed to be made.
>> > > 
>> > > Most of the functionality of this spec is an optimized subset of 
>> > > DOM2 Traversal & Range, and it is intended that a UA could implement 
>> > > both by aliasing; however, this isn't required for conformance to 
>> > > this specification.  I hope that clarifies it for you.
>> > 
>> > It's not a subset at all. Clarification is ok too, but I think the 
>> > sentence is a distraction.
>> 
>> It can be implemented as a subset of functionality.  If others agree 
>> with you, I will rework of remove the sentence in question, though.
> 
> For what it's worth I didn't understand the sentence either, before you 
> explained it. Even now, it sort of reads as saying that if you're not a 
> "minimal code footprint" UA (who isn'?), you are not allowed to implement 
> other similar specs. Or possibly, you are required to implement them, it's 
> not clear. It certainly seems like confusing use of RFC2119 terminology.

Hmmm... well, if you say so.  It seems clear to me, but maybe that's 
because I wrote it.

Given that I already mention DOM2 Traversal & Range elsewhere, so people 
are familiar with the distinction, maybe it's best I remove it.  I don't 
think I intended that as a testable assertion, anyway.


>> Ok, I'll consider something like that.
> 
> Incidentally, from one fellow spec writer to another, in particular one 
> who has to deal with an ungodly amount of feedback :-), I would recommend 
> replying to each e-mail _after_ having made all the changes that you plan 
> to do in reply to the e-mail, rather than before -- that way, you have a 
> clear way of telling how much feedback you have left, and the commentors 
> have a clear way of knowing when to look at the spec to see if they are 
> happy with the new text. Just a suggestion, take it or leave it as you 
> wish, I just find it helps. :-)

I appreciate the feedback.  I had indeed already made the changes, but 
problems with CVS prevented me from updating the public CVS copy 
temporarily.  The changes were in the soon-to-be-published version, 
though, as I'd said.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2008 22:00:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 February 2008 22:00:08 GMT