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: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:33:53 -0400
Message-ID: <4EA5BDA1.6020606@nokia.com>
To: www-dom <www-dom@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, ext Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>, Marcos Caceres <marcos.caceres@wacapps.net>, Alex Kuang <akuang@microsoft.com>
Given the objections to this CfC, a publication request for CR will not 
be submitted. The group's next step will be to"endeavor to resolve" the 
objections as described in the Process Document [Consensus].

Ms2ger enumerates 3 points in his objection [Objection-1]. My 
expectation is that those supporting the CfC will respond to these 
points and both the D3E supporters and DOM4 supporters will work toward 
achieving a mutually agreeable position on them.

In Marcos Caceres' objection [Objection-2], he asserts some of the 
overlaps and redundancies between D3E and DOM4 are confusing and 
requests the D3E spec clarify its relationship to DOM4. I encourage 
Marcos to work with the Editors on text and/or changes that clarify the 

This CfC created two additional points of contention:

1. Request by Alex Kuang to Review D3E test suites [RfR-D3E]

2. Request by Alex Kuang to add EventException support to WebApps' 
testharness.js [EventException]

Until we have reached consensus on the spec issues, I propose these two 
requests be postponed and I will reply to those e-mail threads separately.

I added a 16:00-17:00 agenda topic for D3E and DOM4 for WebApp's f2f 
meeting on Monday October 31 [Oct31-Agenda]



On 10/14/11 3:27 PM, ext 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.
> -AB
> [TS] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webapps/file/tip/DOMEvents/tests/submissions
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     Request for CfC to publish DOM Level 3 Events as a CR
> Date:     Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:11:52 +0000
> From:     ext Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
> To:     Arthur Barstow (art.barstow@nokia.com) 
> <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Charles McCathieNevile (chaals@opera.com) 
> <chaals@opera.com>
> CC:     Doug Schepers (schepers@w3.org) <schepers@w3.org>, 
> www-dom@w3.org <www-dom@w3.org>
> Art and Charles,
> We'd like to request a Call for Consensus to publish DOM3 Events as a 
> Candidate Recommendation.  We believe the spec is ready for such 
> publication on the following grounds:
> 1. Responses to Last Call issues have been documented in a published 
> Disposition of Comments [1].
> 2. At least two members are targeting implementations of this spec 
> (Microsoft, Mozilla)
> 3. All changes since the Last Call draft have been editorial with the 
> exception of:
>     Revision 1.204 - this change was more of a clarification of 
> intended behavior and it matches implementations.
> 4.  In a recent Working Group teleconference,  we've agreed on how to 
> move forward with submitting and approving test cases for a suite 
> (more on this subject to follow shortly).
> We recognize that there will always be new ideas for the event 
> model--some great new ideas, such as event constructors, have recently 
> been proposed. But we can't keep DOM3 Events in perpetual evolution. 
> As such, I've prepared a rough proposal for a new specification to 
> continue innovation in the event model (preliminarily titled "DOM4 
> Events" with event constructors as my first suggestion for scope). I 
> believe such a spec can be written to extend and improve upon DOM3 
> Events in areas that are outside the scope of DOM4 (e.g., event 
> constructors for interfaces outside the "DOM Event Architecture" and 
> "Basic Event Interfaces" chapters of D3E). Doing so will give 
> implementers a stable spec to target (D3E) while still fostering new 
> ideas and continued improvement in the model (DOM4, "DOM4 Events").
> I'm sure folks will have some great technical feedback as well as 
> suggestions for goals/scope of my proposal, and I don't want that to 
> get mixed in with this request for a CfC. So I'll follow up with a 
> link to that proposal shortly in a separate thread so we can begin 
> that conversation.
> Regards,
> Jacob Rossi
> [1]http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/dc.html
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 19:34:33 UTC

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