- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:53:29 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: www-archive@w3.org
Hi, Anne- On 9/4/11 11:04 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > A reply to a private email. > > Adrian objected[1] to the current name, I agreed and suggested[2] an > alternative, David Flanagan suggests[3] "WebDOM", I explain[4] why > "DOM4" is better, David seems[5] fine with it. After not hearing > anything from Adrian I complain[6], and he replies[7] not giving any > concrete suggestions other than that "DOM4" might be too unbounded given > that the scope is unclear. I tell[8] him I clarified the scope even > more. A little before Arthur started[9] the organization thread, where > Adrian is again vague[10] and Arthur ends up saying[11] the scope is not > clear (which I do not believe[12] is true as I clarified it mid-August). > > Meanwhile I still have not gotten feedback on the proposed name nor how > the "Goals" section does not address the intended scope, but I have > gotten so much wishy washy process email I feel somewhat annoyed. I agree that DOM 4 is a much better name. I think it is ironic, however, that you are annoyed with "process issues" when you yourself have been attempting to invoke process and using stop-energy to DOM3 Events [1]. If you really believe your own rhetoric about decreasing process and being predisposed toward progress, then I suggest you practice what you preach. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2011JulSep/0156.html Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Developer Outreach Project Coordinator, SVG, WebApps, Touch Events, and Audio WGs
Received on Sunday, 4 September 2011 15:53:41 UTC