- From: Stephen R. Savitzky <steve@rsv.ricoh.com>
- Date: 03 Sep 1999 15:34:56 -0700
- To: www-dom@w3.org
Raph Levien <raph@acm.org> writes: > Arnaud Le Hors wrote: > > ... simply stating that the current draft is broken isn't quite > > appropriate. On the other hand, that's not "simply" what he said. He said it and then explained, in considerable detail, exactly _why_ it is broken. I understand his frustration. > > As a matter of fact, the current draft (well, the latest > > internal draft at least) does fulfill the requirements we've been > > working with. Your problem is simply that they do not cover your > > requirements. Now, again, I will see if there is anything we can do > > about that. > > While I understand what you're saying about the fact that my requirements > differ somewhat from the ones stated in the DOM2 draft, it doesn't do much > to dispel my concerns. Slavishly following buggy requirements is one of > the surest paths towards overly complex specifications with limited > functionality, which in my opinion the current DOM2 draft represents. This is a problem that I share, in a different context (document-processing applications rather than Model/View). > I don't think I'm asking for an obscure or specialized feature here. On the other hand, based on my experiences over the last couple of years, I doubt very much whether you'll get the requirements changed. As far as I can tell, if it's not required in a web browser, it's not likely to get into the requirements. -- Stephen R. Savitzky <steve@rsv.ricoh.com> <http://rsv.ricoh.com/~steve/> Quote of the month: Death is nature's way of telling you to slow down. Chief Software Scientist, Ricoh Silicon Valley, Inc. Calif. Research Center voice: 650.496.5710 front desk: 650.496.5700 fax: 650.854.8740 home: <steve@theStarport.org> URL: http://theStarport.org/people/steve/
Received on Friday, 3 September 1999 18:35:33 UTC