- From: Jean-Yves Bitterlich <Jean-Yves.Bitterlich@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:26:32 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
- Message-id: <475D84D8.4060303@sun.com>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > On Dec 10, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Jean-Yves Bitterlich wrote: > >> >> Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Ikivo have told me that they also implemented already with the >>>> existing event names, and would write to say so. >>>> >>>> I am therefore resolving this issue by not changing the names. >>> >>> I don't think the JSR objection is very strong, since JSR-280 says: >>> >>> "Note – Note that MouseWheelEvent and ProgressEvent are newly >>> included in the W3C DOM3 draft specification and have not yet gone >>> through the W3C public review. These W3C specifications are >>> therefore to be considered as work in progress. There may be some >>> modifications to these event types in the JSR280 Maintenance Release >>> to ensure alignment with the DOM3 Event types." >> This clause has been added in respect to the agreement between W3C >> and Sun/JSR-280 given the current state of the related W3C >> specifications. > > Sure, and I think we need to respect the spirit and not just the > letter of that agreement. It seems like a bad idea to freeze W3C specs > in very early development just because a faster-moving standards > process copies them. > >>> In general I don't think we want to set a precedent of locking in >>> bad names in Editor's Drafts without a compelling reason. An >>> implementation alone is not much reason, there would have to be >>> significant content depending on it. >> agreed. However, JSR-280 is Final Release: i.e. a Reference >> Implementation (RI) as well as a Test and Compatibility Kit (TCK) are >> available and licensed/licensable; Moreover a development kit is >> also available and compliant. >> This looks compelling enough ... too me :-) > Maybe I should also have mentioned that 2 other JSRs are on they way out: - JSR-287 (SVG2) has reached Proposed Final Draft - JSR-290 (XML UI Markup) is soon to be Public Review. Both refer and require JSR-280 as-is either full or subset. > What would look compelling to me is web content depending on the > specific names. That's more important than whether someone shipped an > implementation. slightly disagreeing ... a referee standard brings as much support as an implementation to a W3C spec in particular when the former standardization body defines strict compliance rules. Still you can consider here JSR-280 being a particular implementation out in the wild. > I'll admit that method naming isn't the biggest issue. But it seems > like bad precedent to start giving weight to external standards that > copy very early stage W3C standards, as this subverts the W3C's own > standards process, which runs by different rules than the Java > Community Process. Agree! and agree! (however ... special case here) That is the reason why the method naming here is almost not worth talking. However on the other ISSUE-118, we agreed and actively supported the move to actually make the event-behaviour pattern change ... for the sake of having a clean W3C spec even knowing that it would change the JSR-280 spec/ri/tck/dev-kit ... > > Regards, > Maciej > > -- <http://www.sun.com/> *Jean-Yves H. Bitterlich* Senior Staff Engineer *Sun Microsystems GmbH* Sonnenallee 1, 85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten, Germany /Mobile: / +49-172-8187243 /Phone: / +49-89-46008-1097 (x61097) /Fax: / +49-89-46008-2978 (x62978) /Email: / Jean-Yves.Bitterlich@Sun.COM Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Bömer; Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
Received on Monday, 10 December 2007 18:26:49 UTC