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

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:21:44 +0100, Doug Schepers <> wrote:
> > Finally, at TPAC, when we discussed working on DOM Core and DOM 3 
> > Events "in parallel", we did not agree to adding events to DOM Core; 
> > in fact, we agreed to exactly the opposite: you wanted to move 
> > mutation events into DOM Core in a thinly-veiled attempt to remove 
> > them completely (rather than simply deprecate them as is done in DOM3 
> > Events), and all the browser vendors disagreed with that.  Claiming 
> > otherwise is simply an attempt to rewrite history.
> # adrianba: I don't have a strong opinion about where
> #           we go in the long term
> # mjs: my preference would be to move forward but plan
> #      [to move things to DOM Core later]
> # smaug_: I agree
> And no, I did not necessarily want to remove mutation events. If they 
> remain implemented they need to be defined. And the best place for that 
> is by the methods that cause them to be fired. Those methods are defined 
> by DOM Core. That was my argument.

For what it's worth, I strongly support the work done by Anne and Ms2ger 
here. The new DOM Core spec is fantastic, specifying things to a great 
level of detail. I think we should adopt this level of detail for all our 
specs. For example, it is the first specification of the Event interface 
that I have seen in over 13 years of DOM specs that actually normatively 
defines (using RFC2119 terminology) what exactly event.eventPhase is to 
return, and it does so succinctly and unambiguously. Similarly for pretty 
much the entire API. It's also the first time I've seen the event dispatch 
processing model described to sufficient detail to get interoperability, 
and it does so in a tenth of the prose of earlier specifications. The same 
applies to its description of the DOM Node interfaces, and indeed to its 
definitions of a number of concepts such as trees, etc. Throughout the 
spec there is a consistent approach of comprehensive concision. I'm a fan.

I intend to update the various specs I maintain to reference this spec in 
the near future (tracked as bug 12094 [1]). Doing so will actually fix a 
number of outstanding bugs in the HTML spec, as well as resulting in a 
significant amount of material being cut out and replaced with simple 
references to the new DOM Core spec.


Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
It should still be called Web DOM Core though. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Friday, 25 February 2011 09:34:17 UTC