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

Re[2]: what kind of feedback from Web API?

From: Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:08:13 -0400
Message-ID: <533753680.20060613110813@itedo.com>
To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

Tuesday, June 13, 2006, 10:22:50 AM, Lofton Henderson wrote:

> In haste this morning (more later)...
Ok. In the mean time...

>>   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.)
Yes, we took guidance from DOM3Ev.

>>   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?
That we are opened to the idea of referencing a subset of DOM3Ev
rather than re-inventing our own.

> 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.
Agreed, we want to avoid substantive changes.
However, it is my opinion, that if we could reference a subset of
DOM3Ev (i.e., the subset we duplicated), few changes are needed on
implementations and test suite.

Please see how the SVG Tiny 1.2 specification created a subset of
DOM3Ev (member-only):

How much work would it be to do something equivalent?

> 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."
This to me, seems like you are not open to the idea of referencing a
subset of DOM3Ev. Am I correct in assuming so?

The group needs a position on this.

Another thing to consider thought is that DOM3Ev is still in WD
status. I'd like to reference DOM3Ev, but I don't want us to be stuck
in CR because they are still in WD? However, we are likely to subset
old DOM2Ev APIs, those are unlikely to change.

 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

> 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 15:08:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:38 UTC