W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > June 2006

Re: what kind of feedback from Web API?

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:22:50 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20060613075912.0156c020@localhost>
To: Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>,public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

In haste this morning (more later)...

At 05:55 PM 6/12/2006 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:

>Here is a first take on the matter. Feel free to comment and suggest
>changes:

Thanks!  Good contribution to kick off our look at this (Web APIs) 
coordination question.

I think its about the right level of detail, and does answer the questions 
reasonably directly.

No comments right now on paragraphs 2-3 (altho' I want to explore some 
detail later, just for our own WG edification in the issues.)

I have a minor comment about the events paragraph, and a more substantive 
one about closing pgph, see embedded...


>--
>   Here is an attempt to clarify our request. WebCGM 2.0 has (more or
>   less) two sets of APIs: one that resembles a subset of DOM 2 Core;
>   the other that resembles a subset of DOM 2 Event.
>
>   Why not use DOM 2 Core or DOM 3 Core? The main reason is that we
>   thought an XML DOM API would create a lot of confusion to CGM
>   (binary format) users. Also note that DOM 3 Core in its entirely is
>   not needed by CGM users. That being said; because of the wide use of
>   DOM Core; we tried to define a similar set of interfaces in an
>   attempt to ease script writers, the burden of learning something
>   completely different; not to undermine the fact that DOM Core has
>   proven to be a reliable set of APIs and thus, seemed like a good
>   basis for WebCGM 2.0.
>
>   Therefore, with regards to the DOM Core like APIs... we are looking
>   for feedback such as: wrong parameter/return types; flaws in the
>   wording with respect to a particular node type; wording that you
>   believe is unclear to a script writer, etc... Additionally, your
>   experience can help us identify areas where our interfaces could be
>   improved for usability.
>
>   With regards to the Event APIs. We have ourselves, been wondering
>   what would be the best course of action: defining our own interface
>   or using DOM Events.

(Trivial comment:  the wording makes it sound like design of our Event 
Model is a future endeavor. In fact, it is done and in Last Call and we're 
wondering if we can improve alignment.with the Web API framework.  We can 
deal with this minor observation when we compose a final answer.)

>We don't however, want to reference the entire
>   DOM 2 or 3 Event specification; that is simply too much for the
>   WebCGM use cases. We could use advice on how best to reference a
>   subset DOM Events. As you will notice from reading the WebCGMEvent
>   interface, you do have a very small subset in mind.

As you note above for DOM Core, we took guidance from it.  Is that not the 
case also for our events and DOM3E? From my weekend reading of DOM3E, it 
seems so.   (This question is just clarification for myself, not 
necessarily a suggestion for change at this point.)


>   We do understand that some of the comments could suggest
>   substantial changes to the specification.

I don't know what this means.  How would you intend the recipients to 
interpret it?

Clearly, we want to avoid massive substantive changes at this stage, and 
Bjoern's comment (see [1]) acknowledges that would is problematic at last 
call.

I'd be inclined to summarize with something more like this, "In summary, we 
hope that the experts of Web APIs can help us to improve the alignment of 
WebCGM 2.0 with Web API technologies and specifications, while avoiding 
major substantive changes, which as noted are usually best avoided at Last 
Call."

All for now,
-Lofton.


>
>Monday, June 12, 2006, 4:14:31 PM, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>
> > WebCGM WG,
>
> > [1]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapi/2006Jun/0014.html
> > (member-only)
>
> > We should have a discussion about what kind of feedback we expect and/or
> > would like from Web API WG, who is listed in our Charter [2] as one of the
> > groups with whom we will coordinate.
>
> > Note that this coordination item was added to our Charter during AC Review
> > phase, in reaction to a comment about the draft Charter received during AC
> > Review.
>
> > Because of anticipated travel of a few WG members starting next week, we
> > must take care of it this week.
>
> > CAVEAT (and mini-lesson) about confidentiality!  You will note that Web API
> > is not a public group, whereas WebCGM is a public group.  Therefore, we
> > must all be careful that we do NOT copy or forward email messages that have
> > been sent to member lists but public lists.  Thus I have pointed to the
> > email message [1], which is in a member-only archive, rather than
> > forwarding it (which would put it in our public archive).  This might seem
> > a little odd at first, but it just takes a little forethought (as I found
> > out in the public QAWG -- learned the hard way by violating it a few 
> times!)
>
> > Regards,
> > -Lofton.
>
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/webcgm-charter.html
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2006 14:23:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:08 GMT