- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:43:58 -0500
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, "\"Gary Kacmarcik" (Кошмарчик)" <garykac@chromium.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 09:44 -0500, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 11/19/14 9:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Although there appears to be agreement that work on the [uievents] spec > >> should stop, the various replies raise sufficient questions that I consider > >> this CfC (as written) as failed. > >> > >> Travis, Gary - would you please make a specific proposal for these two > >> specs? In particular, what is the title and shortname for each document, and > >> which spec/shortname becomes the WG Note? > >> > >> After we have agreed on a way forward, I'll start a new CfC. > >> > >> (I believe the Principle of Least Surprise here means considering specs that > >> currently reference [uievents] or [DOM-Level-3-Events]. F.ex., I suppose a > >> document titled "UI Events" with a shortname of DOM-Level-3-Events could be > >> a bit confusing to some, although strictly speaking could be done.) > > My proposal would be to update UI Events with the latest editor's > > draft of DOM Level 3 Events (title renamed, of course) and have the > > DOM Level 3 Events URL redirect to UI Events. That would communicate > > clearly what happened. > > Yves, Philippe - can Anne's proposal be done? I'm not aware of any reason that would prevent us from doing so. Philippe
Received on Friday, 21 November 2014 13:44:05 UTC