W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

RfC: how to organize the DOM specs [Was: CfC: publish new WD of DOM Core]

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 06:28:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4E43AEE8.8090204@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Jacob Rossi <jrossi@microsoft.com>
[ Topic changed to how to organize the group's DOM specs ... ]

Hi Adrian, Anne, Doug, Jacob, All,

The WG is chartered to do maintenance on the DOM specs so a question for 
us is how to organize the DOM specs, in particular, whether Anne's DOM 
spec should be constrained (or not) to some set of features e.g. the 
feature set in the DOM L3 Core spec.

There are advantages to the monolithic/kitchen-sink approach and, as we 
have seen with other large specification efforts, there aredisadvantages 
too. In general, I prefer smaller specs with a tight{er,ish} scope and I 
think there should be compelling reasons to take the monolithic 
approach, especially if there is a single editor. Regardless of the 
approach, the minimal editor(s) requirements are: previous credible 
experience, technical competence in the area, demonstrated ability to 
seek consensus with all of the participants and willingness to comply 
with the W3C's procedures for publishing documents.

In the case of AvK's DOM spec, there has been some progressive feature 
creep. For instance, the 31-May-2011 WD included a new chapter on Events 
(with some overlap with D3 Events). The 2-Aug-2011 ED proposed for 
publication includes a new chapter on Traversal. Additionally, the ED 
still includes a stub section for mutation events which is listed as a 
separate deliverable in group's charter ("Asynchronous DOM Mutation 
Notification (ADMN)").

Before we publish a new WD of Anne's DOM spec, I would like comments on 
how the DOM specs should be organized. In particular: a) whether you 
prefer the status quo (currently that is DOM Core plus D3E) or if you 
want various additional features of DOM e.g. Traversal, Mutation Events, 
etc. to be specified in separate specs; and b) why. Additionally, if you 
prefer features be spec'ed separately, please indicate your willingness 
and availability to contribute as an editor vis--vis the editor 
requirements above.

-ArtB

On 8/4/11 2:24 PM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:12 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> Anne would like to publish a new WD of DOM Core and this is a Call for
>> Consensus (CfC) to do so:
>>
>>     http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
>>
>> Agreeing with this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
>> WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support for the contents of the WD.
>>
>> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send
>> them topublic-webapps@w3.org  by August 10 at the latest.
>>
>> Positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be
>> considered as agreement with the proposal.
> Microsoft has some concerns about this document:
>
> 1. We have received feedback from both customers and teams at Microsoft that
> the name DOM Core is causing confusion with the previous versions of DOM Core.
> We request that the specification be named DOM Level 4 Core. The original Web
> DOM Core name would also be acceptable.
>
> 2. The scope of the document is unclear. Microsoft believes that the document
> should focus on core DOM interfaces to improve interoperability for DOM Core
> in the web platform and to incorporate errata. If there are problems with
> other specification such as Traversal, those documents should be amended.
> This functionality shouldn't be pulled into DOM Core. We believe improvements
> for mutation events should be kept a separate deliverable for this working
> group (ADMN).
>
> We would prefer to see these issues addressed before moving ahead with
> publication.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adrian.
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2011 10:29:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT