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: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 10:09:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKA+Ax=7=wehjE9HWb9dQmUHCEX_010La+_A39XvZ2W0_K871Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: 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>
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> 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.

The real question is not who's invested what, it's what browsers will
implement.  If we're moving toward a situation where IE will implement
D3E and everyone else will implement DOM Core's idea of events, and
both groups will claim to be implementing "the standard", that's an
absolutely terrible idea and we need to put a stop to it right now.
If the only real reason for it is because different editors or
employers have made investments in different bodies of spec text,
instead of because browser implementers actually disagree on what they
should implement, that's even worse.  I would object in the strongest
terms to progressing any standard to CR if it contains features that
are specified differently in a different standard, if it looks
plausible that different implementers will follow different versions.

(I have not looked at the content of D3E or DOM Core, though, so I
can't say specifically how bad the situation would be if this
happened, nor which should be retired in favor of the other.)
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2011 14:10:49 GMT

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