W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: RfC: LCWD of W3C DOM4; deadline July 31

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:31:05 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+emUmjp3Oira0dJJVgez7jNepZQJXctJoO3htP7M-g2aQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
IETF documents are well accepted, and have a known IPR policy. WHATWG
documents are neither. One should anticipate objections at the PR
transition if a normative reference to a WHATWG remains in a document.


On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:26, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>
>    1. The language "nuked from orbit soon" and "will be nuked" needs to
>    be rewritten. This level of informality is inappropriate for a W3C REC
>    track document. Better to say "expect to be deprecated" or similar.
>    2. It is annoying that a search for "Warning!" in the document fails
>    (at least on Chrome and Firefox) because it is injected from a content
>    style property.
>    3. There remains a normative reference to the WHATWG "URL"
>    specification, which needs to be resolved before moving to REC. It would be
>    well advised to describe the expected process for doing this in the SoTD
>    section.
>
>
>  My understanding is that normative references to WHATWG or IETF documents
> are fine in RECs, according to Tantek at least.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The HTMLWG asked WebApps to review the July 10 LCWD of W3C DOM4:
>>
>>   <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-dom-20140710/>
>>
>> This LC addresses eight [Bugs] in the May [CR]. A diff between the CR and
>> LC is available at [Diff].
>>
>> Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback.
>>
>> If anyone in WebApps wants to propose an official group response, please
>> do so ASAP, in reply to this e-mail so the group can discuss it.
>>
>> Comments should be sent to www-dom @ w3.org by July 31. Presumably, the
>> group also welcomes data about "silent reviews", f.ex. "I reviewed section
>> N.N and have no comments".
>>
>> -Thanks, AB
>>
>> [CR] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/CR-dom-20140508/>
>>
>> [Bugs] <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=
>> UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_
>> status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&
>> bug_status=CLOSED&component=DOM4&list_id=40501&product=
>> HTML%20WG&query_format=advanced>
>>
>> [Diff] <http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%
>> 2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2014%2FCR-dom-20140508%2F&doc2=http%3A%
>> 2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2014%2FWD-dom-20140710%2F>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 16:31:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:23 UTC