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: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:42:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4EA1D937.1080500@gmail.com>
To: www-dom <www-dom@w3.org>
CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Art, all,

On 10/14/2011 09:27 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> The people working on the D3E spec (namely Jacob, Doug and Olli) propose
> below that the spec be published as a Candidate Recommendation and this
> is a CfC to do so:
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html
> The comment tracking document for the last LCWD is:
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/dc.html
> This CfC satisfies: a) the group's requirement to "record the group's
> decision to request advancement" to CR; and b) "General Requirements for
> Advancement on the Recommendation Track" as defined in the Process
> Document:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-reqs
> The exit criteria has not yet been added to the ED and I request the
> Editors to please propose the specific criteria in response to this
> e-mail before the comment deadline. It is my expectation that Microsoft
> and Mozilla will complete the test suite [TS] they started and they will
> implement this CR. As such, I assume the exit criteria will include a
> requirement that at least two independent implementations pass all of
> the test cases.
> 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.

I used to think that the right approach to DOM 3 Events was to get it 
published as a Recommendation as soon as possible, and start to work on 
a higher-quality specification when that happened. However, for various 
reasons, I've changed my mind, and now think that we should make DOM 3 
Events a specification of the quality that is now expected from 

Furthermore, I believe a lot of good work has been put into 
specification, and hope we can move forward with it soon.

However, *I do object to the publication* of this specification because 
the inappropriate resolution of the following issues (in no particular 

First (issue 123), it contradicts an uncontested requirement [1] in DOM4 
forbidding the minting of new DOM feature strings, as reported by Anne. [2]

Second (issue 179), it ignores the consensus about using DOMException 
instead of custom exception types like EventException, as noted in 
WebIDL, [3] which I reported. [4]

Third (issue 130), the resolution made to add an informative WebIDL 
appendix is insufficient. Not only did the editors not list any 
technical reason for this decision in their reply, [5] despite this 
being required by the Process document. [6]

The only claim that I could find in favour of this decision is that 
WebIDL is not stable. [7] However, WebIDL's second LC has ended 
(without, as far as I can tell, too many comments), and as such it is as 
stable as DOM 3 Events itself, and is indeed moving ahead at a rather 
much faster pace.

Furthermore, the DOM 3 Events specification already (stealthily [8]) 
depends on the HTML specification, which is even less stable than WebIDL.

In fact, it is not clear to me what there is to gain by not referencing 
WebIDL normatively. In reality, browsers will have to ignore the 
normative IDL code and use the WebIDL instead. In effect, not 
referencing WebIDL will only make DOM 3 Events *seem* more stable then 
it actually is. (I note that the specification doesn't actually define 
which IDL dialect it uses, though the references section lists OMG IDL.)

I am ready to reconsider my objection once the issues I mentioned above 
are fixed.

Of course, if the editors would welcome this, I am happy to offer my 
help in editing the specification.


[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#dom-features
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2011JulSep/0107.html
[3] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-exceptions
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2011OctDec/0087.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2011AprJun/0066.html
[6] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2011JulSep/0156.html
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2011OctDec/0094.html
Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 20:43:10 UTC

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