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

On Friday, February 25, 2011 1:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > This is a fair goal but my feedback is that it would be better to find a
> > way to build on or enhance DOM L3 Events than to ignore it.
> 
> I have studied it while writing the Events chapter actually. However it
> did not always provide all the answers, as indicated e.g. by Ian and also
> by my email announcing the addition.

My preference is to not have two drafts in the WebApps working group with
conflicting specification of the same feature. If there is feedback or
clarifications that need to be added to DOM L3 Events we should make sure that
happens.

> Where would you like the note to be located? Do you have preferred wording?
> 
> Something like this maybe:
> 
> "DOM Core provides an alternative definition for the 'DOM Event
> Architecture' and 'Basic Event Interfaces' chapters of DOM Level 3 Events.
> We would appreciate your input on which approach you prefer."

Something boxed out at the start of the Events section would be great for now.
Hopefully we can make sure that the drafts are aligned and if the new DOM Core
spec picks up where DOM L3 Events leaves off then that might be an helpful
outcome. I think it's important for us to get DOM L3 Events to done to capture
all the work that has been done over the last decade before moving on to
something new.

> > I'll also say for the record, since you're asking about this, that
> > Microsoft's view is that keeping Event in DOM L3 Events is the best
> > approach but that a profile elsewhere if necessary is fine.
> >
> > Changes along these lines would help show forward progress as intended by
> > a heartbeat draft and then I would happily endorse this call for
> > consensus to publish.
> 
> Cool!

Thanks for considering the feedback,

Adrian.

Received on Monday, 28 February 2011 17:00:19 UTC