- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:44:50 -0500
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- CC: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, "Gary Kacmarcik (Кошмарчик)" <garykac@chromium.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
On 11/19/14 9:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote: >> Although there appears to be agreement that work on the [uievents] spec >> should stop, the various replies raise sufficient questions that I consider >> this CfC (as written) as failed. >> >> Travis, Gary - would you please make a specific proposal for these two >> specs? In particular, what is the title and shortname for each document, and >> which spec/shortname becomes the WG Note? >> >> After we have agreed on a way forward, I'll start a new CfC. >> >> (I believe the Principle of Least Surprise here means considering specs that >> currently reference [uievents] or [DOM-Level-3-Events]. F.ex., I suppose a >> document titled "UI Events" with a shortname of DOM-Level-3-Events could be >> a bit confusing to some, although strictly speaking could be done.) > My proposal would be to update UI Events with the latest editor's > draft of DOM Level 3 Events (title renamed, of course) and have the > DOM Level 3 Events URL redirect to UI Events. That would communicate > clearly what happened. Yves, Philippe - can Anne's proposal be done?
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 14:44:37 UTC