Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] MathML Core (#438)

> The spec looks extremely thorough and well thought out!

Thanks! It's had, and continues to have a lot of work, details, improvements like code examples added.

> The list of elements differs slightly from the list in the Explainer

This is my fault, I let them get out of sync because of open issues on the spec from a while back. I believe we have correct those with a pull from this week.

> There are a number of open issues in the DOM and JavaScript section, which look interesting but seem to be mostly deferred. Are there any of those we should take a look at?

Yes, we are very interested in ultimately aligning with the platform to the very greatest extent possible.  As of our CG call today we have begun to label these things as specifically being deferred to next steps so that we can be clearer and the spec convey more properly about what the immediate goals of initial stable core implementations is.  I think what is important to me, as I said when I met with TAG was in your opinion on how we have broken the problems out and are applying good principles and practical lessons here.   We asked many critical questions here on DOM/JS early on.  Some of these (shadow dom, custom elements) are deferred, but that served as guiding factors while we were doing other things: Making sure we had first steps (elements have IDL in the first place, we have a concept of identifiable unknown elements, we've considered a future with Shadow DOM in discussions where this would be important like linkable elements and so on).  So, I am interested in whatever aspects of this TAG can provide thoughts on:  Is the level of decisions appropriate? (IE, are there things that are deferred that shouldn't be or vice versa? Are there unreasonable answers?)  Or, on things like wanting to explore custom elements/shadow DOM and things and normalize the platform -- are they reasonable aspirations?  

Most obviously, of course, we are interested in whether there is anything actively concerning.  If there is not and you'd like to close the issue, that is ok with us.  However, we're very open to and interested in whatever additional thoughts the TAG is able or willing to comment on regarding the above.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/438#issuecomment-637166371