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

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

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:57:03 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>,public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

At 11:08 AM 6/13/2006 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>Tuesday, June 13, 2006, 10:22:50 AM, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> >>   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.

Aha, the light goes on:  substantial changes to the document, versus 
substantive changes (that would required major rework of implementations, 
test suites, etc.)  I have no problem with the former.  I have some 
problems with the latter.  (Which I would expect also for vendors, users, 
and Cascaders who await a standard.)

>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?

Dunno'.  I'll go have a closer look.

> > 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?

No, not correct.  I think it would be great if we could -- without serious 
impact on vendors, users, schedule, Cascaders -- align better with DOM3E, 
point to it, subset it, etc.  (From my study of DOM3E on the weekend, I 
*suspect* that we can, but I haven't looked carefully enough yet.)

So I guess I didn't express myself clearly.  When I said "major substantive 
changes", I specifically meant anything that would have major negative 
impact (on vendors, ... Cascaders).  If we can rewrite our events text to 
express in terms of DOM3E, without such impact, I'm fine with it.  In fact, 
I'd favor it.

>The group needs a position on this.


I sense that you and I are actually pretty close on position, yes?

>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.

Yes, I have learned recently (and will elaborate for other WG members):

-- DOM3E was a WG Note, Nov. 2003.
-- went into hibernation till April 2006
-- when Web APIs revived it and published it as FPWD.
-- builds on DOM2E, which has been Rec for a long time.

-- I haven't had a chance to study "Changes" [1],
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DOM-Level-3-Events-20060413/changes.html ,
but I suspect most of what we have in WebCGM events is actually in DOM2E.

Definitely we don't want to have a normative dependence and get stuck at CR 
behind a DOM3E spec that is too far behind us.  There are ways to avoid 
that, I think.


> >>
> >>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 23:57:16 UTC

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