W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: [progress-events] default action suggestion

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:48:29 +0200
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <op.vkkl23ba64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:17:04 +0200, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>  
wrote:
> The latest ED of the Progress Events spec says:
>
> [[
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/#suggested-progressevent-types
>
> Throughout the web platform the |error|, |abort|, and |load| event types
> have traditionally not had a default action and did not bubble so it is
> suggested that for consistency all event types using the |ProgressEvent|
> interface do not bubble and are not cancelable.
> ]]
>
> The rationale for that recommendation seems reasonable so I'm wondering
> if, for interop reasons, this text should be prescriptive, as implied in
> the following; or if this text should be marked as non-normative:
>
> [[
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0026.html
>
> * Event types are now suggestions rather than normative. Specifications
> will have to make the final call.
> ]]

I wasn't sure whether to explicitly mark non-normative sections. In part  
because at least one section is normative but does not use RFC 2119  
keywords (section 3.1) as it being normative comes only in to play when  
referenced with an accompanying conformance requirement. So I was not sure  
whether that would make sense. If more people feel strongly about this I  
could explicitly mark section 1, 2.3, 3.2, 3.3, 4, and appendix  
Acknowledgments non-normative.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 14:49:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:41 GMT