Re: [DOM3Events] CR

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 17:47:45 +0200, Doug Schepers <> wrote:
> On 9/4/11 9:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> 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.

All our specifications use Web IDL normatively. I do not see why DOM Level  
3 Events has to be special here.

>> 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.

The File API specification has a warning in the specification about this  
changing. I think at a minimum that should be stated.

These were just two issues that came to mind though, I still have  
outstanding Last Call comments, as do other people.

> 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

Not true. I already explained I started with a clean state. I then checked  
the differences and raised issues.

> * refusing to join telcons to which you were invited to discuss issues  
> you've raised

Not true. I did not refuse, but I indicated I could not join that day (if  
I remember correctly it would have been late at night for me).

> * asking other groups (like the Web Performance WG) not to cite DOM3  
> Events on the grounds that it is "obsolete"

Not true. That was about DOM Level 3 Core and I did not say 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)

That issue was raised almost well over a year ago now. And it was not just  
raised by me. It still seems like the best solution to me. That the "DOM  
Event Architecture" and "Basic Event Interfaces" chapters of DOM Level 3  
Events are removed and that you make it an events specification similar to  
Progress Events.

> * claiming that W3C Process has been violated in dealing with your  
> feedback, when it had not

Water under the bridge. I already acknowledged this was a misunderstanding.

> * 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.

Both are technical issues with the specification.

> 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  
> technical.

I think you are making more out of this than it is.

> 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?

As long as we disagree on how I am not sure how.

> [1]

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 15:08:41 UTC