On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by
> November
> > 14 at the latest.
> My concern is that we previously agreed that UI Events would be a much
> more suitable name for the contents of DOM Level 3 Events.

I agree. "UI Events" is a much more descriptive name for the content.

My primary concern is that we (specifically, "I") have been telling people
that UI Events is not the same as D3E. If we change this, then I'll have to
have those conversations all over again, but reversed. ^_^

But we
> would keep using DOM Level 3 Events because it would be done quickly
> and then we'd move on to UI Events. As we now know we did not finish
> DOM Level 3 Events quickly.

FWIW, we pushed to have it done quickly and it was delayed:
(1) once because the spec was a step backward from DOM2 in some regards and
that needed to be fixed,
(2) again because there was feedback that style and presentation should be
updated to match more recent specs.

#2 is when the WG effectively decided that cleaning up the presentation was
more important than releasing it quickly.

So I would like us to abandon that name
> and settle on UI Events.


With regards to the current contents of UI Events, I assume that publishing
a "gutted WD Note" is meant simply to establish a historical record of what
was worked on before the content is deleted?  When we were focusing on
completing the D3E spec quickly, this is where we sent items that we felt
should be part of D3E, but would take too much time to finalize. We'll want
to reconsider some of these items for inclusion back in D3E (er... I mean
UI Events).


Reply via email to