W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Request for CfC to publish DOM Level 3 Events as a CR

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:06:45 +0200
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Ojan Vafai" <ojan@chromium.org>
Cc: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.v3b85jucwxe0ny@widsith-3.local>
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:58:06 +0200, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Jacob Rossi wrote:
>> > But we can't keep DOM3 Events in perpetual evolution.
>>
>> I disagree with this premise. All Web specs can, and indeed should,  
>> remain in perpetual evolution. As I've said many times, the current
>> "jerky" model encouraged by the TR/ process is harming the Web. In
>> this instance, for instance, improvements such as event constructors
>> are artificially being delayed from being added to established event
>> interfaces for no reason other than the process.
>
> Strongly agree with this as well. In the specific case of DOM3 Events,  
> there have been many proposals to add new events or modify existing
> ones that have been put on hold indefinitely because of a desire to
> get the spec to CR.

I strongly *disagree* with this conclusion, and its interpretation of the  
premise.

The Web is in continual evolution - I think nobody argues with that.

But there are multiple stakeholders working in different ways with subtly  
or not-so-subtly different goals.

Some of them are interested in building to the latest and greatest  
immediately. Others are more concerned with stability than functionality

> This forces browser vendors to either not implement the feature or  
> implement it without standardizing it.

Nonsense. We can happily simultaneously implement testing versions of DOM4  
and standardise it. In any case, *test* implementation and standardisation  
should run pretty much alongside each other. It is reasonable that some  
browsers (and some production tools, and almost all content producers) opt  
not to be a testing platform for any given piece of development, since  
that implies having to redo the implementation (or bully the world into  
accepting the bugs in your first pass version).

Meanwhile, it makes sense to set out snapshots as "done - let's get this  
bit interoperable for everyone".

> Both of those results seem much worse than any benefits we get from
> the current process.

But neither of them is necessary, or even what actually happens unless  
some browser deliberately decides to do so.

And in any event, while the W3C Process for getting documents to  
recommendation *is* up for discussion, it is not up for discussion in this  
group, which is chartered to produce Recommendations following the W3C  
process as it is at the relevant time.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Friday, 14 October 2011 11:07:21 GMT

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