W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: CfC: to publish a Last Call Working Draft of DOM 3 Events; deadline September 3

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 13:48:18 -0400
Message-ID: <4C794BE2.9060703@w3.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, www-dom <www-dom@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Hi, Anne-

There are still still some outstanding issues, which we intend to 
address in LC; many of them are marked up specifically to solicit wider 
review and comments, which is generally more forthcoming during LC.  The 
goal is to collect these comments so we are ready to discuss them during 
TPAC.  We expect we will have to have another LC.

So, are these intended as LC comments (which I'm happy to address), or 
as an argument against going to LC?

Replies inline...

Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 8/28/10 6:03 AM):
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:32:13 +0200, Arthur Barstow
> <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>> Doug and the folks working on the DOM 3 Events spec believe the spec
>> is now feature-complete and would like to publish a Last Call Working
>> Draft of the spec. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish
>> the following document as the LCWD:
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html
>
> There still seem to be a open issues (marked up in the specification).

Yes, this is by design.  We believe the spec is feature complete, but we 
know there are outstanding issues we want feedback on.


> A comment I raised on the 'scroll' event some weeks ago is also not
> addressed.

Sorry, I see I started a reply there, but never sent it (sigh); I will 
send it now.  I think that issue needs more discussion, but I'm happy to 
change it during LC if that's the group consensus.


> (Just noticed that the references section contains a reference to XHTML
> but that is never referenced from the draft. The HTML5 and CSS 2.1
> references are out of date.)

Removed XHTML (an artifact from an earlier draft), updated the other 
references.


> Looking through it a bit more the mousewheel event seems gone. I thought
> we agreed long ago that would be part of it. (Various notes in the
> specification do mention it, but it seems they are included by accident.)

Yes, we included 'mousewheel' as recently as 7 months ago, but I removed 
it based on implementer feedback.  I've now removed the stray reference 
to it in the "Changes" section.

The only other place it's mentioned is in the 'wheel' event as an 
informative comparison.


> I'll try to review more closely on Monday.

Thanks.  Please let us know if you object to us going to LC, given our 
plan of record.

(Note: I will be at the SVG Open conference and SVG WG F2F starting on 
Monday, for the next week and a half, and will probably not be very 
responsive.)

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Saturday, 28 August 2010 17:48:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:14:05 GMT