Re: CfC: Request transition of DOM4 to Proposed Recommendation

On 07/20/2015 05:18 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret 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.

I prepared the following draft:
http://w3c.github.io/dom/PR-20150903.html

Note that it keeps DOMError around (in an appendix) because IndexedDB v1 
still points to it. I added a warning to it to make clear that it 
shouldn't be used.

I also update the draft to point to WebIDL Level 1:
   http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL-1/

> 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.

My understanding is that this is stable but we're still waiting on an 
update from the CSS Working Group.

A few bugs were opened in August:
 
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?chfieldfrom=2015-06-18&chfieldto=Now&component=DOM&product=WebAppsWG&query_format=advanced

but aren't showstoppers imho.

So, I'm suggesting, assuming we can get the update from CSS, that we 
move the draft to PR.

Philippe

Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 15:04:28 UTC