Re: CfC: Request transition of DOM4 to Proposed Recommendation

On 07/16/2015 06:19 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 13/07/2015 17:18 , Shane McCarron wrote:
>> I also still object to the use of the term "nuked".  Not enough to vote
>> no, but I don't understand why it hasn't been changed.  I was pretty
>> sure I submitted a comment to this effect the last time around too.
>
> It's a glitch. This is editorial, can easily change before publication.

Actually, it looks like DOMError is no longer needed can be removed (DOM 
wasn't using it but it was kept there just in case someone else needed 
for legacy). Latest version of WebIDL now defines Error and 
DOMException. Which always means that section 3.1 and 3.3 of the DOM 
spec are become deprecated as well. I propose to move those two into a 
separate appendix, which more or less matches what's in the draft of WebIDL.

Also:

We have some normative links to HTML 5.1:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/webappapis.html#report-the-exception
  http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/webappapis.html#queue-a-microtask
  http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/webappapis.html#compound-microtask
 
http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/webappapis.html#execute-a-compound-microtask-subtask
 
http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/browsers.html#unicode-serialisation-of-an-origin

  Those are links to definitions and we could keep the links to those.

We have links however to various places within
  http://drafts.csswg.org/selectors/#scoping
  http://drafts.csswg.org/selectors/#relative
Again, those are definitions (used by querySelector*) but we should ask 
at the minimum the level of stability from the CSS Working Group imho.

Philippe

Received on Monday, 20 July 2015 21:19:04 UTC