Hi All,
Thanks for the comments and discussion! I finally reviewed all of the
responses and here are my thoughts on moving forward ...
Some members of the group consider the D3E spec as the highest priority
of our DOM-related specs and they have put considerable resources into
that spec. Doug and Jacob will continue to lead that spec effort, and as
I understand it, a CR for D3E is imminent. I expect the group to help
progress that spec.
At the same time, others members have put substantial resources into DOM
Core (and closely related functionality such as DOM Range). Naturally,
they want to preserve that investment and I support that work
continuing. Although Aryeh's DOM Range spec was recently added to DOM
Core, the totality is still relatively small, at least when compared to
some other specs such as HTML5, SVG1, CSS2.
To help address "feature creep" for DOM Core, the Editors will notify
the list before adding any significant features to the spec.
Aryeh will become an Editor of DOM Core. Others that make substantial
contributions will also be considered as additional Editors (provided
they meet the type of requirements listed below). Adrian mentioned
Microsoft may be willing to provide editor resources for DOM and their
participation in DOM Core would of course be welcome.
Re the scope of DOM Core, I agree the spec lacks clear text regarding
its scope. Inputs for scope, as well as the spec's requirements, should
be submitted to the list.
Re the degree of "done-ness" of the various parts of DOM Core, I agree
this can create various issues. To help address this issue, it may be
useful for specific sections to include descriptive text about that
section's implementation and deployment status.
The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was blocked by this RfC. I will
proceed with a request to publish a new WD of DOM Core in TR/. The name
DOM Core will be used for the upcoming WD. If anyone wants to propose a
name change, please start a *new* thread.
-Regards, ArtB
On 8/11/11 6:28 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
[ Topic changed to how to organize the group's DOM specs ... ]
Hi Adrian, Anne, Doug, Jacob, All,
The WG is chartered to do maintenance on the DOM specs so a question
for us is how to organize the DOM specs, in particular, whether Anne's
DOM spec should be constrained (or not) to some set of features e.g.
the feature set in the DOM L3 Core spec.
There are advantages to the monolithic/kitchen-sink approach and, as
we have seen with other large specification efforts, there
aredisadvantages too. In general, I prefer smaller specs with a
tight{er,ish} scope and I think there should be compelling reasons to
take the monolithic approach, especially if there is a single editor.
Regardless of the approach, the minimal editor(s) requirements are:
previous credible experience, technical competence in the area,
demonstrated ability to seek consensus with all of the participants
and willingness to comply with the W3C's procedures for publishing
documents.
In the case of AvK's DOM spec, there has been some progressive feature
creep. For instance, the 31-May-2011 WD included a new chapter on
Events (with some overlap with D3 Events). The 2-Aug-2011 ED proposed
for publication includes a new chapter on Traversal. Additionally, the
ED still includes a stub section for mutation events which is listed
as a separate deliverable in group's charter ("Asynchronous DOM
Mutation Notification (ADMN)").
Before we publish a new WD of Anne's DOM spec, I would like comments
on how the DOM specs should be organized. In particular: a) whether
you prefer the status quo (currently that is DOM Core plus D3E) or if
you want various additional features of DOM e.g. Traversal, Mutation
Events, etc. to be specified in separate specs; and b) why.
Additionally, if you prefer features be spec'ed separately, please
indicate your willingness and availability to contribute as an editor
vis-à-vis the editor requirements above.
-ArtB
On 8/4/11 2:24 PM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:12 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Anne would like to publish a new WD of DOM Core and this is a Call for
Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Agreeing with this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support for the contents of
the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send
them [email protected] by August 10 at the latest.
Positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be
considered as agreement with the proposal.
Microsoft has some concerns about this document:
1. We have received feedback from both customers and teams at
Microsoft that
the name DOM Core is causing confusion with the previous versions of
DOM Core.
We request that the specification be named DOM Level 4 Core. The
original Web
DOM Core name would also be acceptable.
2. The scope of the document is unclear. Microsoft believes that the
document
should focus on core DOM interfaces to improve interoperability for
DOM Core
in the web platform and to incorporate errata. If there are problems
with
other specification such as Traversal, those documents should be
amended.
This functionality shouldn't be pulled into DOM Core. We believe
improvements
for mutation events should be kept a separate deliverable for this
working
group (ADMN).
We would prefer to see these issues addressed before moving ahead with
publication.
Thanks,
Adrian.
