Re: [DOM3Events] CR

Hi, Anne-

On 9/4/11 9:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow
> <> wrote:
>> Some members of the group consider the D3E spec as the highest
>> priority of our DOM-related specs and they have put considerable
>> resources into that spec. Doug and Jacob will continue to lead that
>> spec effort, and as I understand it, a CR for D3E is imminent. I
>> expect the group to help progress that spec.
> I do not think that is appropriate given that unlike all our other
> specifications it does not use Web IDL

DOM3 Events does provide Web IDL definitions for the interfaces [1]; it 
simply doesn't make them normative, because Web IDL is not yet stable.

Should the Web IDL spec reach a stable state in time, we can make the 
Web IDL definitions normative.

> and we still have not settled how
> to deal with exceptions on the web platform.

DOM3 Events doesn't change anything about this.  Should a later spec 
(such as DOM 4 / DOM Core) change how exceptions are handled, and if 
implementers agree with that change, we can simply issue an erratum for 
that in DOM3 Events, and publish an updated draft.  This is a minor and 
common issue... that later specifications supersede previous ones.

Anne, I try not to impute motives behind feedback, but you have been 
putting unusual energy behind undermining and blocking the progress of 
DOM3 Events, including:
* deliberately defining conflicting behavior in a later edition 
specification being developed in parallel with DOM3 Events, without 
raising those issues with the DOM3 Events editors
* refusing to join telcons to which you were invited to discuss issues 
you've raised
* asking other groups (like the Web Performance WG) not to cite DOM3 
Events on the grounds that it is "obsolete"
* raising issues very late in the process that call for sweeping 
non-technical changes to the spec (such as splitting the spec out into 2 
different specifications)
* claiming that W3C Process has been violated in dealing with your 
feedback, when it had not
* Finally, this email, where you state a false claim (that we don't 
provide Web IDL definitions) and introduce a blocking claim (exception 
handling) that will not be resolved anytime soon and which is not 
critical for the success of the spec and its implementations.

Perhaps these were unintentional missteps on your part, rather than 
deliberate attempts to slow down the progress of the specification, but 
it had the same effect of causing more work for the editors and stalling 
the process.  I don't think this is appropriate behavior for 
participating in a group in good faith, and seems more political than 

You have also provided good feedback to the spec, which we have 
incorporated and which we appreciate.  This spec, with feedback from 
crucial implementers and reviewers, provides incremental and substantial 
improvements to the Open Web Platform, such as a much-needed 
standardized keyboard model, and I suggest that any further improvements 
needed can be made in a later DOM spec.

Can we simply move forward, please?


-Doug Schepers
W3C Developer Outreach
Project Coordinator, SVG, WebApps, Touch Events, and Audio WGs

Received on Sunday, 4 September 2011 15:48:10 UTC