- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:32:20 -0800
- To: Krzysztof Maczyński <1981km@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org
On Nov 19, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Krzysztof Maczyński wrote: > Dear WGs, > (Ccing public-webapps@w3.org.) > >>> They could be split out into a separate specification or >>> specifications, >>> and HTML5 would probably not even need to reference them. >> >> I agree that it's good design in principle to split the core platform >> APIs (window, navigator, etc) into separate specs. >> >> However, it is also much harder than it may seem. > SVG 1.2 Tiny has some of this stuff. Window Object 1.0 WD is a more > elaborate take, in hiatus because of no active editor and apparently > also of unclearness still covering the dependencies and what should > therefore go where to achieve a workable and reasonable suit of > orthogonal specs. > I suggest scaling the Window Object 1.0 WD down to what SVG 1.2 Tiny > specifies, possibly with some small and uncontroversial additions. > This spec could progress to Rec quickly, having been long overdue > and implemented since 1990s. Then version 2.0 could use a better > approximation of our wishlists. Speaking as the former editor, I think Window Object 1.0 actually specifies too little to be a useful for anything in HTML5. Cutting it down further would probably not result in something useful. That's part of why I stopped work. > >> To be clear, this list *is* the right venue for discussing the draft, >> including ideas for changing it. > You also wrote to Shelley Powers: >> In the meantime, please do not attempt to quash discussion of what is >> in the draft. > The way I understood Shelley, and actually support this position, is > that placement of these APIs in HTML5 drafts is wrong to begin with > because the HTML5 WG isn't chartered to work on APIs which aren't > (shouldn't be) particularly associated with HTML. Window (although a > misnomer) is the most important badly missing piece in Web > scripting, and currently only in SVG (at least as W3C specs go, and > of course unless I'm missing something) can it be used legally (e.g. > expecting a property called document on the global object if the > language is ECMAScript). That is a reasonable position to take and it's fine for Shelley (or you) to pursue it. But for now the Navigator object is in HTML5, and we should continue to provide a forum for discussing it until such time as we decide to remove it. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 20 November 2009 00:33:05 UTC