Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 5/27/08 7:17 PM):
On Wed, 28 May 2008 00:58:45 +0200, Doug Schepers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Vendors have actually requested this. The problem is summarized here:
Well... that's not quite a normative reference. :)
It was not a reference for that claim, it was a reference for the issue
we have. It seems you're suggesting you rather leave it underdefined?
No, I want it defined somewhere that there isn't a long wait on a
dependency chain. I assume you're not claiming that vendors have asked
for the opposite... but I'd be entertained by a link to that reference. :)
Seriously, I'm not sure what your point was here... I explained that
commercial browser vendors prefer stable, mature specs, without
unresolved dependencies... could you clarify why that isn't a concern?
We have discussed adding consideration for "event handler DOM
attribute" in the DOM3 Events spec, such that a host language can
define what that means in its context
Again, HTML5 currently has a better definition.
Okay, I'll work on that.
Great, though note that we reference DOM Level 2 Events currently as
that is more stable and does everything XMLHttpRequest requires.
Referencing DOM Level 3 Events instead would actually increase the
number of instable dependencies.
Yes, let's reevaluate that in light of progress on DOM3 Events shortly.
Sure. Is there some reason this can't be made generic and left to the
host language to define?
I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
I'm asking for an explanation about the nature of the dependency, vis a
vis the necessary level of details in XHR.
Note that we also rely on HTML5 for document.innerHTML to define proper
serialization of a Document object.
Noted. Any proposal on how that can be resolved?
W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI