W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom-ts@w3.org > June 2001

SV: Recap and action items

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:57:41 +0200
Message-ID: <9F67DC27F4CCD311ABA600508B6A66A44A66FF@VXOIMP1>
To: "'Curt Arnold'" <carnold@houston.rr.com>, www-dom-ts@w3.org
comments inlined

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Curt Arnold [mailto:carnold@houston.rr.com]
Skickat: den 6 juni 2001 17:15
Till: www-dom-ts@w3.org
Ämne: Re: Recap and action items


> > [dd] OK, so, Required, with null as a default value?

I'd really prefer required but null as a prohibited value (at least for
now).
Since passing null into a DOM method is a fairly rare occurrance,
I don't think the slight increase in the test complexity in those
rare instances is worth a substantial increase in the complexity
of the transform.

[dd] OK, so we'll wait to see what happens when we start writing tests. 

> > [dd] No problem for me, it's just terminology. It could also be good
idea
> to
> > have a pending flag while the DOM WG considers a tests and its relation
to
> > the specification.
> >
>
> [mb] No problem with these categories, although I agree that we should
have
> the ability to distinguish between Received and "Pending on clarification
> from WG"

Status Pending is used for items that need feedback from the submitter.  I
misused
it earlier.  Any item that was made "Pending" would revert to "Open" if the
submitter
made a comment.

One way would be to create distinct SourceForge accounts for the TS
moderator
and/or for the WG.  If the test is assigned to the TS moderator, then the
test
has passed any preparation and is pending discussion within the TS group.
If the test is assigned to the WG id, then the test has been referred to the
DOM workgroup.

[dd] One way of doing it. We could also use the DOM WG rep, NIST rep and one
SF rep as the first line of moderators, then move it to "investigated by the
DOM WG" as required.
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 12:58:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:58:44 GMT