On 9/4/11 8:47 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Anne-
On 9/4/11 9:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow
<[email protected]> wrote:
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.
I do not think that is appropriate given that unlike all our other
specifications it does not use Web IDL
DOM3 Events does provide Web IDL definitions for the interfaces [1];
it simply doesn't make them normative, because Web IDL is not yet stable.
Should the Web IDL spec reach a stable state in time, we can make the
Web IDL definitions normative.
and we still have not settled how
to deal with exceptions on the web platform.
DOM3 Events doesn't change anything about this. Should a later spec
(such as DOM 4 / DOM Core) change how exceptions are handled, and if
implementers agree with that change, we can simply issue an erratum
for that in DOM3 Events, and publish an updated draft. This is a
minor and common issue... that later specifications supersede previous
ones.
Doug,
Is there a wiki page or other resource for looking into implementation
status on DOM3Events?
It's a large spec, and I'd like to plan for it in our internal roadmap.
I'm no fan of event.pageX, but it's very heavily used in our code base.
Our screenX hooks, when written, were targeting Adobe's Flash event
namespaces. It's mentioned once, in DOM3Events, in the legacy context of
initMouseEvent.
Anne,
It seems to me that the following section documents DOM Core's proposed
improvements to DOM3Events:
http://www.w3.org/TR/domcore/#dom-events
What are the current restrictions in Event.type that are concerning you?
As I understand it, there is no normative list for event types, though
vendors -may- restrict them. There are strict restrictions for
null/empty string types.
http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Events/#event-types
I do see that in 9.2, DOM Core attempts to clean-up some older
namespaces. "Implementations conforming to this specification will not
support them".
That seems to me, the primary reason for labelling DOM3Events as "obsolete".
Is it common for a specification to explicitly state that conforming
implementations will -not- support legacy specs?
There's this bit of related text as well:
"Vendor-specific proprietary extensions to this specification are
strongly discouraged. Authors must not use such extensions, as doing so
reduces interoperability and fragments the user base, allowing only
users of specific user agents to access the content in question."
That seems in conflict with the following, in the mutations section:
"We encourage experimentation with that proposal, as well as alternative
proposals"
I understand DOM Core to be encouraging a tidy and easy-to-use API. It
does not seem to leave room, with some of these statements, for legacy
compatibility, nor much experimentation.
-Charles
