W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Request for CfC to publish DOM Level 3 Events as a CR

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:32:00 +0200
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.v3c7nmyawxe0ny@widsith-3.local>
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:11:25 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:40:13 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Jacob Rossi wrote:
>> > >
>> > > We'd like to request a Call for Consensus to publish DOM3 Events as
>> > > a Candidate Recommendation.
>> >
>> > ... I would recommend ...
>> Do you mean this as a late last call comment, as a request to put those
>> features 'at risk', or as an objection to publishing the spec?
> Neither. I do not consider the event model part of this specification to
> be relevant, as it is entirely supplanted by DOM Core's description.
> I do not think there should be a difference in how feedback is handled
> based on where in the W3C process the specification falls.

That might be so. But W3C process binds this group, rather than vice  
versa. Please take it up with your AC rep, or directly with the relevant  
people at W3C.

> That you might consider such editorial feedback "late" is yet more
> evidence of the harm that the process causes the Web.

Nonsense. There is no apparent harm here to deal with

> Feedback that impacts implementations can be late if it contradicts
> implemented interoperable reality,

Actually only in the rather narrower subset of such cases where there is  
implementation that will not be changed but rather used to reject requests  
for change. (This may be for good or bad reasons).

> but it is meaningless to refer to feedback that does not impact
> implementations as "late"; a spec can always be changed in an
> editorial fashion.

Indeed. Equally, a spec can always be published in the form it reached at  
a particular point in time. Which is the apparent case here, with work on  
a new specification to take over describing the still-evolving platform.


Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Friday, 14 October 2011 23:32:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:36:59 UTC