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: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:54:08 +0100
To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Adrian Bateman" <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Michael Champion" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <op.vrgdsikl64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 01:57:04 +0100, Adrian Bateman  
<adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 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 see. I missed that it was resolved. The issue status still says RAISED.  
Is it expected that all implementations will actually converge on this  
less than optimal behavior? From the issue it seemed pretty clear that  
e.g. Gecko had engineered it quite differently.


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

I changed the 2 to a 3.


>> 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 have studied it while writing the Events chapter actually. However it  
did not always provide all the answers, as indicated e.g. by Ian and also  
by my email announcing the addition.


>> 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.

Where would you like the note to be located? Do you have preferred wording?

Something like this maybe:

"DOM Core provides an alternative definition for the 'DOM Event  
Architecture' and 'Basic Event Interfaces' chapters of DOM Level 3 Events.  
We would appreciate your input on which approach you prefer."


> 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.

Cool!


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 25 February 2011 09:54:47 GMT

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