- From: <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:37:37 -0600
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- cc: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>, User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, WAI Protocols & Formats WG <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
OK. So what do you suggest assuming we don't punt and go back to DOM 1? I am also not happy with things like Mouse events in the state they are in DOM 2 and would like to see them tossed. What other features of DOM 2 should we change. I believe we need to: - take as much of DOM 2 as is acceptable - Exactly identify the elements that are not supported (and target these for DOM 3) and indicate these to the UA group - Work on cleaning up the appropriate DOM 2 event issues in DOM 3 (PF task) - Determine what new features we need in DOM 3 (PF task as well) Rich Rich Schwerdtfeger Lead Architect, IBM Special Needs Systems EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/rich.htm "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.", Frost Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> on 02/16/2000 01:26:21 PM To: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu> cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, WAI Protocols & Formats WG <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org> Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: User Agent Issue 190: I agree. That's why I wrote http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0311 (and a few similar things on the topic in teh past 18 months). Charles McCN At 9:45 AM 2/16/00, schwer@us.ibm.com wrote: [snip] >Lets stop saying what we don't like and come up with a suitable interim >solution. Punting and going back to DOM1 is not the solution.
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2000 03:26:39 UTC