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

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

From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:33:18 +0000
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ADCFE64F-4DCB-45FD-B78D-20A191B1E308@domenicdenicola.com>
And one should anticipate objections at the PR transition if the normative reference to the original spec is removed.

On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:31, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:

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<mailto:domenic@domenicdenicola.com>> wrote:

On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:26, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com<mailto: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<mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com>> wrote:
The HTMLWG asked WebApps to review the July 10 LCWD of W3C DOM4:


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<http://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 16:34:05 UTC

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