- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:12:38 +0000
- To: www-dom@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16506 Summary: Comments on 1.2 Conformance Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: ASSIGNED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DOM3 Events AssignedTo: travil@microsoft.com ReportedBy: Ms2ger@gmail.com QAContact: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, www-dom@w3.org | For example, behavior in exceptional circumstances (such as when a null | argument is passed when null was not expected) is discussed under | DOMException, This is now handled by WebIDL; the parenthetical should probably be removed or replaced. | (e.g., a conforming DOM3 Events user agent must support the DOMString data | type as defined in DOM3 Core, but need not support every method or data type | defined in DOM3 Core in order to conform to DOM3 Events). DOMString, too, is defined in WebIDL. | A dynamic or interactive user agent [...] conforms to DOM Level 3 Events if | it supports the [features] which are not marked as deprecated, This seems like an uncommon use of the word "deprecated". Not sure what to say instead, though. | A conforming browser must support scripting, declarative interactivity, or | some other means of detecting and dispatching events in the manner described | by this specification, and with the attributes specified for that event type. It seems strange to call out "attributes" here; maybe "interfaces" or "APIs" would be better. | A declarative browser may still conform to this specification if it does not | directly support or expose the methods defined for the DOM Level 3 Events | interfaces, but it should provide compatible functionality by other means. I don't think this sentence is necessary; why would a "declarative browser", whatever that is, need to claim conformance to D3E? | A conforming browser may also support features not found in this | specification, [...] Such features may be later standardized in future | specifications. The second "may" probably doesn't want to be a RFC2119 keyword. | Conforming content must use the semantics of the interfaces and event types | as described in this specification, and must follow best practices as | described in accessibility and internationalization guideline specifications. I'm all for following best practices, but I don't think it is up to D3E to tell me that. | Events defined in conforming specifications must not have name conflicts with | known languages, I'm not sure what "name conflicts" means here, but if it means you can't define events with the same type, but different interfaces, I believe that would be widely violated. I doubt we really need this requirement, in fact. -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 24 March 2012 14:12:40 UTC