W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Rescinding the DOM 2 View Recommendation?

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:02:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4E430010.3080106@w3.org>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, ext Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
Hi, Art-

After discussion with PLH and Ian Jacobs, and I don't think it's 
necessary for us to go through the additional overhead of rescinding the 
DOM 2 View specification.

Instead, PLH and I support Anne's original proposal to simply update the 
status section of the spec to point people to the HTML5 spec.  We could 
add wording like:

[[
Updated definitions of the 'document' and 'defaultView' attributes are 
now defined by the HTML5 specification.  Other concepts in this 
specification may not be necessary for implementation in general user 
agents such as Web browsers.
]]

I don't object to rescinding it, I simply prefer the option with the 
least process necessary.


For what it's worth, I am not convinced of the usefulness or necessity 
of adding notes (or rescinding) older specifications (e.g. DOM3 Core, 
DOM2 HTML, HTML4.x and XHTML1.x, and so on, as suggested in another 
thread).  A short list would be manageable, but I'm concerned about 
opening the door for this as a point of contention and endless debate. 
I would favor a more positive approach, actively listing the features 
that a modern browser should be expected to implement (I expect that 
such a list exists somewhere already); I think that would be more 
helpful to implementers.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Staff Contact, SVG, WebApps, Web Events, and Audio WGs


Arthur Barstow wrote (on 8/10/11 1:17 PM):
> Anne, Ms2ger, All,
>
> Anne and others proposed in [Proposal] the DOM 2 View Recommendation
> [D2V] be "rescinded". The rescinding process is defined in the Process
> Document [Rescind]. However, Ian Jacobs just indicated in IRC [#webapps]
> it has never actually been used.
>
> One process requirement for rescinding a Recommendation is a "separate
> rationale for the proposal to rescind". Would you Anne and/or someone
> please create the rationale document (using WebApps' wiki)? I think it
> should include a clear problem statement i.e. identify the interop
> issues this Recommendation is causing as well as the alternative (new)
> solution.
>
> If anyone has comments about this proposal, please speak up.
>
> -ArtB
>
> [Proposal]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/0454.html
> [D2V] http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Views/
> [#webapps] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20110810
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2011 22:03:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:14:08 GMT