- From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:26:19 +0000
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
- CC: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:21 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Anne and Ms2ger (representing Mozilla Foundation) have continued to work > on the DOM Core spec and they propose publishing a new Working Draft of > the spec: > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html > > As such, this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new WD of DOM Core. > If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send them > to public-webapps by March 2 at the latest. > > As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and > silence will be assumed to be agreement with the proposal. I'm concerned about the working group endorsing a working draft with phrasing like "The timeStamp attribute must be useless." I understand there are issues related to this (e.g. ISSUE-172) but this doesn't seem like a professional way to approach them. I think the document should have a clearly stated goal relative to DOM L3 Events. Currently it describes building on DOM L3 Core and DOM L2 Events. Anne described adding events to the draft last week [1] but it's not clear to me what the benefit of redefining the Event interface in this document is when W3C is proceeding with DOM L3 Events on the Recommendation track. If there are things that need to be clarified specifically for browsers and similar user agents then perhaps a profile of DOM L3 Events would be better. I'd prefer issues like this to be resolved before endorsing them in a Working Draft. Thanks, Adrian. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0559.html
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2011 18:26:56 UTC