Re: publish a new Working Draft of DOM Core; comment deadline March 2

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:26:19 +0100, Adrian Bateman  
<> wrote:
> 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.

It's a funny way ;-) And it has a red marker pointing out the problems.  
And as stated in the Status of this Document section publication does not  
imply endorsement.

> I think the document should have a clearly stated goal relative to DOM  
> L3 Events.

I thought that would be inappropriate since DOM Level 3 Events is still in  
development. We discussed this at TPAC and decided that DOM Core would do  
things in parallel and based on that we would figure out which is the  
better approach once both are somewhat more stable. However, relative to  
DOM Level 3 Events the differences are identical. So if that would remove  
your objection I can change the "2" to a "3".

> 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.

The idea is to provide a better definition of the events model at a more  
appropriate location. I do not think DOM Level 3 Events is the right way  
forward, but I am happy to work in parallel to see which turns out better  
in the end.

> I'd prefer issues like this to be resolved before endorsing them in a  
> Working Draft.

Working Drafts are there to share ideas with the wider world. They are not  
endorsed. Last Call Working Drafts and beyond are supposed to be checked  
carefully. Letting the wider world comment on this idea is exactly what I  
would like; to see if it's a good idea.

It would be nice if you could suggest some approach as to how we could  
resolve this timely.

> [1]  

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Thursday, 24 February 2011 22:38:04 UTC