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

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of DOM 3 Events; deadline October 21

From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:29:14 +0300
Message-ID: <4E998AAA.5050908@helsinki.fi>
To: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-dom <www-dom@w3.org>
On 10/15/2011 03:42 PM, Ms2ger wrote:
> Hi Art,
>
> On 10/15/2011 01:38 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> On 10/14/11 8:40 PM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:27:50 +0900, Arthur Barstow
>>> <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>>>> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and
>>>> encouraged and silence will be considered as agreeing with the
>>>> proposal. The deadline for comments is October 21 and all comments
>>>> should be sent to www-dom at w3.org.
>>>
>>> As outlined in
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0234.html
>>> and
>>> elsewhere there are still outstanding comments, so this does not seem
>>> like a good idea.
>>
>> The issues raised in [1] and [2] were submitted well after the
>> 28-June-2011 deadline for comments. As such, it seems like they could be
>> postponed for the next rev/level of spec(s).
>
> In particular the issue raised in [2] can not be deferred to the next
> level. If these "features" are not removed now, the Working Group is
> calling for them to be implemented, and, of course, the specification
> will only be able to transition to the Recommendation stage if they are
> indeed implemented in two user agents.
Note, CompositionEvent is already implemented at least in 2 engines.
TextEvent and WheelEvent at least in 1 engine, and I do assume
them to be implemented at least in 1 more engine.


> At that point, it will become
> significantly harder to make the Web Platform cleaner and easier to use
> by removing them.
>
> I find it distasteful to request that user agent implementers and test
> case authors spend time on an API that we expect to remove in the near
> future, based purely on procedural matters. As it happens, not all
> comments arrive at the most convenient time for the Working Group and
> its editors; that does not allow us to ignore such feedback.
>
> Furthermore, the W3C Process document states that, [3] in order to
> advance to Candidate Recommendation, the Working Group *must*
>
> # * Formally address all issues raised about the document since the
> # previous step.
>
> without excluding issues raised after an arbitrary date, and "Formally
> Addressing an Issue" includes [4]
>
> # The group's responsibility to respond to reviewers does not end
> # once a reasonable amount of time has elapsed.
>
> HTH
> Ms2ger
>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2011JulSep/0252.html
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2011JulSep/0253.html
>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-reqs
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address
>
>
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 13:30:05 GMT

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