[Bug 27718] Avoid removing anything harmless

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27718

donjjordan@gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |donjjordan@gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from donjjordan@gmail.com ---
Brett, I’ve done a lot of front-end web development since the late 1990s, so I
can empathize with your position.  It’s no fun going back to re-write code that
worked just fine until support for a feature in an API changed or went away.
However, I hold the opposite opinion.

In the past year, I’ve begun development on a new desktop application that’s an
SVG-based drawing program for Windows Metro. Without boring everyone with the
details, I’m bringing up a new implementation of the DOM 4 and SVG 2
specifications in “modern” C++ for this project.  As I sat down to implement
the DOM, I started with DOM 3 since that is the current official
recommendation.  As I went through the DOM 3 specification I was asking myself
why there was so much superfluous functionality?  The answer, as I see it, is
fallout from the browser wars and front-end web development, being a new shiny
thing, caused the DOM 3 specification to include what everybody wanted, but not
necessarily what everyone really needed. 

When I looked at the drafts of the DOM 4 specification I thought, ‘Yes, this is
the direction they needed to go!’  It’s been ten years plus since the DOM 3
recommendation and, in that time, front-end web development has had a chance to
mature somewhat.  Now that we have a better idea what everyone needs in the
DOM, it’s a good time to refactor it down to a more concise, core
functionality.  This will stabilize the API for the long term.  I can’t think
of anything one can do in DOM 3 that can’t be accomplished in DOM 4. So,
personally, I won’t miss any of the nuked features.

That’s my two-cents worth.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 1 January 2015 00:08:51 UTC