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

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of DOM 3 Events; deadline October 21

From: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:42:02 +0200
Message-ID: <4E997F9A.9090603@gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-dom <www-dom@w3.org>
Hi Art,

On 10/15/2011 01:38 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 10/14/11 8:40 PM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:27:50 +0900, Arthur Barstow
>> <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>>> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and
>>> encouraged and silence will be considered as agreeing with the
>>> proposal. The deadline for comments is October 21 and all comments
>>> should be sent to www-dom at w3.org.
>> As outlined in
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0234.html and
>> elsewhere there are still outstanding comments, so this does not seem
>> like a good idea.
> The issues raised in [1] and [2] were submitted well after the
> 28-June-2011 deadline for comments. As such, it seems like they could be
> postponed for the next rev/level of spec(s).

In particular the issue raised in [2] can not be deferred to the next 
level. If these "features" are not removed now, the Working Group is 
calling for them to be implemented, and, of course, the specification 
will only be able to transition to the Recommendation stage if they are 
indeed implemented in two user agents. At that point, it will become 
significantly harder to make the Web Platform cleaner and easier to use 
by removing them.

I find it distasteful to request that user agent implementers and test 
case authors spend time on an API that we expect to remove in the near 
future, based purely on procedural matters. As it happens, not all 
comments arrive at the most convenient time for the Working Group and 
its editors; that does not allow us to ignore such feedback.

Furthermore, the W3C Process document states that, [3] in order to 
advance to Candidate Recommendation, the Working Group *must*

# *  Formally address all issues raised about the document since the
#    previous step.

without excluding issues raised after an arbitrary date, and "Formally 
Addressing an Issue" includes [4]

# The group's responsibility to respond to reviewers does not end
# once a reasonable amount of time has elapsed.


> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2011JulSep/0252.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2011JulSep/0253.html

[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-reqs
[4] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 12:42:33 UTC

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