RE: PSA: publishing FPWD of D3E Keyboard {key,code} Values specs and WD of UI Events

From: garykac@google.com [mailto:garykac@google.com] On Behalf Of Gary Kacmarcik (?????????)

> But that sort of re-write is not realistically going to happen for D3E (unless we don't care about it finishing anytime soon).

If by "finishing" you mean "getting to REC," then it seems entirely necessary. Without an actual formal and interoperable description of how events are fired, I can't imagine that happening. Trying to drive toward REC a document that is widely known to be out of touch with modern reality will not work. The talk about D3E vs. UI Events wherein D3E plans its own obsolescence via a rewrite is similarly worrying: if D3E is known to be so obsolete that it needs a rewrite, then work on it should be dropped and work on the non-obsolete spec revved up.

> I don't think it's reasonable to do this in D3E because the requirement to keep all the historical and deprecated DOM event information (like keypress, DOMAttrModifier, charCode, MutationEvents, and so on) would make the new spec unwieldy. I'd prefer (if we go this route) to keep the historical stuff (as much as possible) sandboxed in D3E so that we can have a relatively clean UIEvents spec.

I don't understand the issue here. There are no real "historical and deprecated" parts of the web platform; there are parts that browsers implement, and parts that they do not implement. Some of the implemented APIs can be acknowledged as a bad idea, and can even have notes that certain browsers are trying to remove them and they might be removed from the spec if such an experiment is successful, or notes that recommend browsers add an ugly console warning. But all of these things need to be specced---and even more so, specced interoperably and rigorously, and not in terms of a legacy model! Keypress, charCode, and friends are parts of the web platform, and any spec that tries to ignore them is simply an incomplete spec that is not doing its job. If UI Events is planning to be at all authoritative, it needs to include these too.

Received on Friday, 30 May 2014 00:45:30 UTC