- From: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:03:47 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- CC: Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>, public-test-infra@w3.org
On 04/19/2013 03:48 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: > On 19/04/2013 15:24 , Tobie Langel wrote: >> On Friday, April 19, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: >>> On 19/04/2013 13:04 , Ms2ger wrote: >>>>> DOMEvents -> DOM-Level-3-Events >>>>> html -> html5 >>>>> domxpath -> DOM-Level-3-XPath >>>> >>>> >>>> I object to introducing version numbers into the names, for all >>>> the reasons we had to decide not the introduce them in the first >>>> place. >>> >>> So the above are the ones that apply to this objection. If we pick >>> alternative names, we can simply ask to get a TR redirection for >>> those, I think. >>> >>> It might be a good idea to reclaim /TR/html/ for something sensible >>> in any case :) >> >> I don't mind holding on to change those directories to something more >> reasonable, but that implies fixing /TR. Who volunteers? > > I can ask for the shortnames. What do we want? > > html > dom-events > dom-xpath > > ? > > I can't promise we'll get them, though. There might be a middle ground > compromise where we get "html" but not the others. It might not matter > if there is no new DOM XPath (extremely likely) and if DOM Events move > to DOM (which is the case in the WHATWG document at least). For the > latter, that would move the content of dom-events to dom. DOM 3 Events describes two things: the basic model (which has moved to DOM) and UI events (which will be obsoleted by a "UI Events" spec), so I would suggest using ui-events rather than dom-events. HTH Ms2ger
Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 16:04:18 UTC