Re: CfC: Request transition of DOM4 to Proposed Recommendation

I agree that my comments were addressed.

+1

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> The CfC requesting transition of DOM4 to Proposed Recommendation was
> originally sent out on Jul 13:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2015Jul/0004.html
>
> We now have a revised candidate Proposed Recommendation draft that takes
> into consideration all of the comments on the original CfC:
> http://w3c.github.io/dom/PR-20150903.html
>
> This note summarizes the comments on the original CfC and its associated
> candidate Proposed Recommendation draft and proposes a course of action.
>
> Art's comment in
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2015Jul/0005.html
> was handled by Bug https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28943.
>
> Shane's accessibility concerns in
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28943#c1 were also dealt
> with.  See https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28943#c7.
>
> Philippe discovered minor problems in the usage of DOMError and with the
> document's Normative References in
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2015Jul/0010.html.
> These have been dealt with editorially in the revised candidate Proposed
> Recommendation draft.
>
> Philippe also pointed out some references to definitions in the Editor's
> Draft of CSS Selectors 4 in
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2015Jul/0010.html
> and this concern have been dealt with editorially as per
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2015Sep/0004.html
> in the revised Candidate Proposed Recommendation draft.
>
> Given that none of the above changes made normative changes to the
> original candidate Proposed Recommendation draft, the HTML WG co-chairs
> propose that we move forward with the DOM4 transition request using the
> revised candidate Proposed Recommendation draft identified above.  The WG
> Chairs plan to issue a WG Decision on the original CfC using the  revised
> candidate Proposed Recommendation draft on Tuesday Sep 22.
>
> Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive
> responses are encouraged.  If there are no objections by Tuesday Sep 22,
> this resolution will carry.
>
> /paulc
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 3:08 PM
> To: Paul Cotton
> Cc: public-html-admin@w3.org
> Subject: Re: CfC: Request transition of DOM4 to Proposed Recommendation
>
> So, given that we know we won't get the Selectors Level 4 update in time,
> and I believe the Director won't settle for links to an editors, my current
> thinking to unblock the DOM spec and is to copy the *very
> general* definitions in an appendix of the DOM spec:
>    http://w3c.github.io/dom/PR-20150903.html#css-concepts
>
> Using the Selectors Level 4, I figure I keep the concepts as general as
> possible and make it clear that the Level 4 draft is the spec to look at.
> If the Level 4 draft gets up-to-dated by the time we go to REC, we could
> remove the appendix.
>
> It's less than ideal for sure but, since the clock is against us, I don't
> have a better solution unfortunately.
>
> Philippe
>
> On 07/20/2015 06:30 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 07/20/2015 06:05 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
> >> 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,
> >
> > I'm actually not suggesting to remove normative materials, but move it
> > into a separate appendix section instead (which is normative).
> >
> > Philippe
> >
>



-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.