- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:05:30 -0500
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOk_reHWgiSuuVTtRKjn8BsiZfmF2Sz=s2FwenSXeg_ChgMhmg@mail.gmail.com>
Obviously I am in favor of any changes that improve the accuracy of our specifications. However, if you are proposing to change anything that is normative, don't we need to return to last call or CR or whatever the new process requires? On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote: > > > 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 > -- Shane McCarron Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Received on Monday, 20 July 2015 22:05:59 UTC