W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

RE: publish a new Working Draft of DOM Core; comment deadline March 2

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:57:04 +0000
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
CC: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <104E6B5B6535E849970CDFBB1C5216EB3D0C060E@TK5EX14MBXC138.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:37 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:26:19 +0100, Adrian Bateman
> <adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > I'm concerned about the working group endorsing a working draft with
> > phrasing like "The timeStamp attribute must be useless." I understand
> > there are issues related to this (e.g. ISSUE-172) but this doesn't seem
> > like a professional way to approach them.
> 
> It's a funny way ;-) And it has a red marker pointing out the problems.
> And as stated in the Status of this Document section publication does not
> imply endorsement.

Of course it's true that the status doesn't imply everyone agrees with
everything and I'm okay with that but heartbeat working drafts are intended
to show forward progress and this feels like a retrograde step to me
compared to the previous draft.

This should be updated to reflect the discussions for ISSUE-171 and ISSUE-172.

> > I think the document should have a clearly stated goal relative to DOM
> > L3 Events.
> 
> I thought that would be inappropriate since DOM Level 3 Events is still
> in development. We discussed this at TPAC and decided that DOM Core would do
> things in parallel and based on that we would figure out which is the
> better approach once both are somewhat more stable. However, relative to
> DOM Level 3 Events the differences are identical. So if that would remove
> your objection I can change the "2" to a "3".

Since DOM L3 Events is further along and likely to track faster than this spec
it would be reasonable to refer to this.

> The idea is to provide a better definition of the events model at a more
> appropriate location. I do not think DOM Level 3 Events is the right way
> forward, but I am happy to work in parallel to see which turns out better
> in the end.

This is a fair goal but my feedback is that it would be better to find a way
to build on or enhance DOM L3 Events than to ignore it.

> > I'd prefer issues like this to be resolved before endorsing them in a
> > Working Draft.
> 
> Working Drafts are there to share ideas with the wider world. They are
> not endorsed. Last Call Working Drafts and beyond are supposed to be checked
> carefully. Letting the wider world comment on this idea is exactly what I
> would like; to see if it's a good idea.
> 
> It would be nice if you could suggest some approach as to how we could
> resolve this timely.

If this is your intent then it would be helpful to include a note in the draft
making this clear so people know to give this kind of feedback. Otherwise it
is just confusing to see it defined in two different places.

I'll also say for the record, since you're asking about this, that Microsoft's
view is that keeping Event in DOM L3 Events is the best approach but that a
profile elsewhere if necessary is fine.

Changes along these lines would help show forward progress as intended by
a heartbeat draft and then I would happily endorse this call for consensus
to publish.

Thanks for your consideration,

Adrian.
Received on Friday, 25 February 2011 00:57:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:43 GMT