W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Updates to Selectors API

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:57:43 -0400
Message-ID: <4FDF17B7.7060105@nokia.com>
To: ext Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 6/14/12 10:11 AM, ext Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Hi,
> I have updated the specification for Selectors API Level 1, which is 
> currently in CR.
>
> Most of it was editorial in nature, to bring it in line with Selectors 
> API Level 2, except without adding any of the new features like 
> findAll() or or matches().
>
> Importantly, the IDL has now been updated to comply with the most 
> recent WebIDL specificiation.  This was basically to split it up into 
> 3 partial interfaces, just like what was previously done in v2.
>
> Some of the prose was rewritten, but none of the changes should 
> adversely affect implementation requirements. This was mostly done by 
> back porting the content from v2, but while ensuring that all the 
> normative references still refer to the older, stable specs. (e.g. 
> DOM3Core instead of using DOM4, as is used in the v2 draft.)  This now 
> makes v1 a proper subset of v2.
>
> In the process, I also made a few minor editorial changes to v2 just 
> to tidy it up.
>
> At this stage, we should be able to publish v1 as a revised CR, or 
> possibly move it up to PR. 

I like the changes Lachlan, especially the new section 6.4.

Although I have argued to the Advisory Committee and Advisory Board the 
process should (under certain circumstances) permit a CR to be directly 
re-published as a CR, that currently is not possible. Nevertheless, I 
think it could be a bit tricky to argue to the Director in this case 
that there were no substantive changes (e.g. the new 6.4) so my 
recommendation is that we publish a new LCWD with the minimum 3-week 
review period (and make sure all of the changes can be reviewed).

At the end of the LC review period, if no substantive changes are 
needed, and we already have sufficient interop data (i.e. the 2009 CR 
exit criteria is already met), we could skip a new CR and directly 
publish a PR.

Do you or Chaals have the interop data now (and if so, where is it)? 
What do you think about going the LC->PR route?

> We can also publish v2. as a new WD.

If you want me to start a CfC to publish a new WD of v2, just let me know.

-Thanks, Art

> Alternatively, we could forgo any further progress with v1 and let v2 
> supersede it entirely, at which point I could simply rename it back to 
> "Selectors API" without a version number and move on.  (This is my 
> preferred approach).
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/
>
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 11:58:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:52 GMT