- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:48:20 -0800
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: DOM mailing list <www-dom@w3.org>
On Dec 2, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > If you think there should be a DOM Working Group chartered with > changing the specs such > that they match what some set of web browsers implement, it's best to > convince AC representatives to communicate this. Does anyone else here think it is a good idea to charter a new DOM Working Group with updating the spec to make it implementable for web browsers, given the installed base of the web? If so, I'll ask the Apple AC rep to propose this. I originally thought a lighter-weight process would be sufficient. The two changes suggested are minor and seem of similar scope to existing errata(*). And I don't believe further changes will be needed to make the spec implementable for web browsers. It seemed excessive to charter a working group to consider making two small, backwards-compatible changes. This is why I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that these suggestions could be processed by a maintenance mode DOM activity, as has already been proposed. My apologies if I was mistaken to the assumption. Regards, Maciej * - For instance note this Level 2 Core erratum which requires an exception in a situation where it was previously not allowed by a literal reading of the text: "The sentence: DOMException.NO_MODIFICATION_ALLOWED_ERR: Raised if this node is readonly. should read: DOMException.NO_MODIFICATION_ALLOWED_ERR: Raised if this node is readonly or if the previous parent of the node being inserted is readonly."
Received on Friday, 2 December 2005 21:48:35 UTC