Re: Report on event listener investigation

Thread starts here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2014Aug/0090.html

> James Craig writes:
>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 5:44 AM, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Alternately, we could run the proposal through the HTML working group's DOM team.  There is clearly some opposition to this in the community, and we might run into that opposition harder there than if we just did it ourselves.  
>> 
>> I do not recommend PFWG circumventing the DOM groups on any issue that is not accessibility-specific. Instead, it’d be better to look into the reasons a listeners API was dismissed previously, and critically question whether another attempt is worthwhile.


On Aug 27, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> I don't see any proposal to circumvent anything or anyone. Your use of
> that term is unfortunate, imo, and we should recognize this up front.
> I'm sure it was simply written in haste.
> 
> I see Shane's email discussing various documented, legitimate
> approaches. Extension specs are one such approach agreed by consensus of
> the HTML-WG as part of Plan 2014. It's not circumvention to suggest PF
> might want to propose moving forward via an extension specification.
> Clearly, also by agreement with the HTML-WG, we would do so via the
> HTML-A11Y TF, as indeed we would were we to seek to impact the dom spec
> directly. In fact, starting with an extension is one path blessed in
> Plan 2014 for affecting the primary specification. Keeping the extension
> spec spearate is an independent process decision that the HTML-WG would
> still need to accept.
> 
> So, this is discussion of available options, not a call to
> circumvention.

The term circumvent just means to "find a way around an obstacle." I think that usage is fair and accurate in this context given that Shane said:

>>> There is clearly some opposition to [a listeners API] in the community, and we might run into that opposition harder [if we ran the proposal past the DOM team] than if we just did it ourselves.

>> 
>> I do not recommend PFWG circumventing the DOM groups on any issue that is not accessibility-specific. Instead, it’d be better to look into the reasons a listeners API was dismissed previously, and critically question whether another attempt is worthwhile.

Janina, you may be referring to the archaic definition of circumvent which means "to deceive." I was not ascribing any intention of malice or deception to Shane's comment. My comment was merely meant to convey that developing a new DOM API to expose event listeners on an element node is well outside the charter of both the PFWG and HTML-A11y-TF, primarily because it is not an accessibility-critical or accessibility-specific need. I think it would be both a technical and strategic mistake for either group to do develop on its own.

It's great that Shane has researched and listed options. I think a listeners interface would very useful, but I don't think PFWG or HTML-A11Y-TF should develop it.

James

Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2014 18:32:57 UTC