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

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

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 09:12:45 -0400
Message-ID: <4E63794D.3090302@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>
Hi All,

Thanks for the comments and discussion! I finally reviewed all of the 
responses and here are my thoughts on moving forward ...

Some members of the group consider the D3E spec as the highest priority 
of our DOM-related specs and they have put considerable resources into 
that spec. Doug and Jacob will continue to lead that spec effort, and as 
I understand it, a CR for D3E is imminent. I expect the group to help 
progress that spec.

At the same time, others members have put substantial resources into DOM 
Core (and closely related functionality such as DOM Range). Naturally, 
they want to preserve that investment and I support that work 
continuing. Although Aryeh's DOM Range spec was recently added to DOM 
Core, the totality is still relatively small, at least when compared to 
some other specs such as HTML5, SVG1, CSS2.

To help address "feature creep" for DOM Core, the Editors will notify 
the list before adding any significant features to the spec.

Aryeh will become an Editor of DOM Core. Others that make substantial 
contributions will also be considered as additional Editors (provided 
they meet the type of requirements listed below). Adrian mentioned 
Microsoft may be willing to provide editor resources for DOM and their 
participation in DOM Core would of course be welcome.

Re the scope of DOM Core, I agree the spec lacks clear text regarding 
its scope. Inputs for scope, as well as the spec's requirements, should 
be submitted to the list.

Re the degree of "done-ness" of the various parts of DOM Core, I agree 
this can create various issues. To help address this issue, it may be 
useful for specific sections to include descriptive text about that 
section's implementation and deployment status.

The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was blocked by this RfC. I will 
proceed with a  request to publish a new WD of DOM Core in TR/. The name 
DOM Core will be used for the upcoming WD. If anyone wants to propose a 
name change, please start a *new* thread.

-Regards, ArtB

On 8/11/11 6:28 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
> [ 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 Sunday, 4 September 2011 13:13:44 GMT

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