W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: CfC: to publish a Last Call Working Draft of DOM 3 Events; deadline September 3

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:23:49 -0400
Message-ID: <4C7A5F65.5060603@w3.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, www-dom <www-dom@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Travis Leithead <travil@microsoft.com>, Olli.Pettay@gmail.com
Hi, Anne-

Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 8/29/10 4:07 AM):
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:48:18 +0200, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>> There are still still some outstanding issues, which we intend to
>> address in LC; many of them are marked up specifically to solicit
>> wider review and comments, which is generally more forthcoming during
>> LC. The goal is to collect these comments so we are ready to discuss
>> them during TPAC. We expect we will have to have another LC.
>> So, are these intended as LC comments (which I'm happy to address), or
>> as an argument against going to LC?
> Somewhat against a Last Call. After all, Last Call is for when we think
> we are done. Although this is often not the case (see e.g.
> XMLHttpRequest), if we know it is not, it seems too early to issue one.

Sorry, I should have set expectations better.

Those of us who were working on DOM3 Events during the telcons, 
specifically Travis Leithead, Olli Pettay, and me, believe that DOM3 
Events is feature complete, and while we understand that there are known 
points on which people will raise issue (such as the ones you are 
raising now), and are willing to change the spec to match that LC 
feedback, we don't expect the spec to change its feature set.  (BTW, 
I've already changed most of what you asked for with 'scroll'.)

There are a few places where we would also like to put in more examples 
or informative wording, but we didn't feel that should block Last Call.

As you say, with specs that have a long history, like DOM3 Events or 
XMLHttpRequest, there is always likely to be difference of opinion over 
whether it is done, or done to the satisfaction of the entire group.  I 
expect that long after DOM3 Events or XHR or even HTML5 are 
Recommendations, there will be people who are not happy with the spec. 
In my opinion, disagreement with some aspect of the spec is not 
sufficient rationale to block it from progressing to LC, if the 
technical details are sound.

If the group decides to change something, I will change it; I have 
changed, added, and dropped many things I personally didn't agree with, 
many of them based on your feedback; If anything, I will treat LC 
feedback even more carefully.  Obviously, this spec is not going to 
progress to CR unless the group feels it is ready, so I would like to 
take that first step of going to LC despite there being some areas of 
disagreement, even as you did with XHR.  If you will recall, I supported 
going to LC (twice) and CR for that spec, even though I disagreed (and 
still disagree) with some of the decisions.  I'm asking for the same 
courtesy; if there are indeed technical issues with DOM3 Event that are 
raised during LC, then we will address them as a group and resolve them.

I'm headed to the airport now, so I'll address your comments about 
mousewheel in another email.  I've CCed Olli and Travis, and ask them 
send in their rationale for dropping 'mousewheel'.  (I believe it was 
pretty fully specced when we dropped it, so it would be easy to add it 

-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Sunday, 29 August 2010 13:23:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:36:57 UTC