- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 11:41:25 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Morten Barklund <morten@barklund.dk>
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009, Morten Barklund wrote: > > I am writing due to an interest in the DOM2 Traversal and Range > specification, that I understand is in need of a rewrite. > > However, I fail to see the "many" problems being the cause for this need > - I have read the Errata, but it only has minor corrections and then > there was the discussion on this list last year about Range.insertNode(). The many problems all boil down to the same thing: lack of precision in edge cases. > What is the status of the adoption of the specification? Are browser > implementations so far from specification, that it is irrelevant or have > vendors understood parts of the spec differently due to missing details > or? The latter, mainly. > What would be the purpose of a rewrite and what would be the work > involved? The purpose would be to make it so well-defined that implementations could be interoperable without reverse-engineering each other. The work involved would be writing a new spec from scratch, probably about 10-20 hours a week for four months, followed by maintenance and bug fixing, probably about 5 hours a week for six months, followed by waiting for someone else to write a test suite, helping them out where possible and fixing problems they find, probably a few years with minimal work on average but with the occasional 20-hour week when an implementor or tester finds a bunch of problems at once. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 7 September 2009 11:38:04 UTC