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

On 2/28/11, Adrian Bateman <> wrote:
> 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

Redundance is bad.

Breaking up D3E into modules, such as "core", "keyboard", "mouse",
etc, is a good thing. I've proposed this action in the past, as have
others and Doug (the maintainer of D3E) disagreed then and now.

The parts of D3E that are made redundant can be removed from D3E. A
clean extraction and cooperation won't come without conflict.

Although I defiantly[1] agree with modularization of D3E, I'm not sure
if events belong in DOM core. It makes DOM core a "this and that", not
just a "this" formally speaking, less "cohesive".

| DOM Core defines the event and document model the Web platform uses.

That says that DOM Core defines two different things: events and DOM.
Some things might implement DOM Events Core (or a subinterface
thereof) but are unrelated to the DOM. Like XHR.

Could Events Core exist on its own? (You could make DOM Core
conformance require Events Core conformance).

Received on Monday, 28 February 2011 17:50:21 UTC