Re: ISSUE-119: names lengthComputable and total

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