Re: [DOM] Name
On 9/5/11 2:38 PM, Adam Barth wrote: On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barth wrote: On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow wrote: 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. Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest we name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD we publish a couple of weeks later). I propose calling it "Web Core". WC1 (Web Core version 1). WebCore is one of the major implementation components of WebKit. Calling this spec Web Core might be confusing for folks who work on WebKit. It would be somewhat like calling a spec Presto. :) Or calling a browser "Chrome". :) Web Core does implement web core, doesn't it? Yes, but it also implements HTML5, which isn't part of Web Core. HTML5 includes DOMCore in its dependencies. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/infrastructure.html#dependencies From the DOMCore goals: "moving features from HTML5 that ought to be part of the DOM platform here, while preventing a dependency on HTML5". DOMCore specifies the EventTarget, from which Node, Element and Document inherit, as well as the Event class, from which even non-node classes, such as web messaging, inherit. And the DOMException enumeration. The web core sub-directory contains modules (such as workers) which include DOMCore as the root of their dependency chain. The naming seems appropriate to me. All that said, I'll re-assert: I'm fine with Anne taking the name of DOMCore in the direction of his choosing. I still believe that "Web Core" as a name and semantic has more utility than "DOM4", both in the authoring of specifications and the implementation of various specs which build upon EventTarget and/or Event as their root interface. -Charles
Re: [DOM] Name
On 9/6/11 9:18 AM, David Flanagan wrote: On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow wrote: 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. Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest we name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD we publish a couple of weeks later). This is an editorial issue, and Anne is the editor. It should be his perogative to name the spec he's put so much work into. Editing specs is hard work; let's not create needless headaches for the editors. Everyone has had a chance to make their suggestions, now let's just let Anne publish his spec under whatever name he chooses. Its just a name! I'm not standing in his way, but I can at least point-out that the DOM* name has lead to additional work in other specs, such as the web messaging specs. It seems like an optimization, to me, as I outlined in my prior e-mail. If it needs to be officially stated (I'm not a w3c member): I'm fine with Anne naming his specification DOM Core Level 4, or whatever variant of DOM he is looking to publish under. -Charles
Re: [DOM] Name
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow wrote: 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. Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest we name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD we publish a couple of weeks later). This is an editorial issue, and Anne is the editor. It should be his perogative to name the spec he's put so much work into. Editing specs is hard work; let's not create needless headaches for the editors. Everyone has had a chance to make their suggestions, now let's just let Anne publish his spec under whatever name he chooses. Its just a name! David
Re: [DOM] Name
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > > > > > On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: >>> On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow >>> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest we >>> name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD we >>> publish a couple of weeks later). >>> >>> I propose calling it "Web Core". >>> WC1 (Web Core version 1). >> >> WebCore is one of the major implementation components of WebKit. >> Calling this spec Web Core might be confusing for folks who work on >> WebKit. It would be somewhat like calling a spec Presto. :) > > Or calling a browser "Chrome". > > Web Core does implement web core, doesn't it? Among a lot of other things e.g. SVG canvas and various html5 things >>> >>> >
Re: [DOM] Name
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: >>> On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow >>> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest we >>> name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD we >>> publish a couple of weeks later). >>> >>> I propose calling it "Web Core". >>> WC1 (Web Core version 1). >> >> WebCore is one of the major implementation components of WebKit. >> Calling this spec Web Core might be confusing for folks who work on >> WebKit. It would be somewhat like calling a spec Presto. :) > > Or calling a browser "Chrome". :) > Web Core does implement web core, doesn't it? Yes, but it also implements HTML5, which isn't part of Web Core. Adam
Re: [DOM] Name
On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: >> On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow >> wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest we >> name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD we >> publish a couple of weeks later). >> >> I propose calling it "Web Core". >> WC1 (Web Core version 1). > > WebCore is one of the major implementation components of WebKit. > Calling this spec Web Core might be confusing for folks who work on > WebKit. It would be somewhat like calling a spec Presto. :) Or calling a browser "Chrome". Web Core does implement web core, doesn't it? >> >>
Re: [DOM] Name
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: >>> On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow >>> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest we >>> name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD we >>> publish a couple of weeks later). >>> >>> I propose calling it "Web Core". >>> WC1 (Web Core version 1). >> >> WebCore is one of the major implementation components of WebKit. >> Calling this spec Web Core might be confusing for folks who work on >> WebKit. It would be somewhat like calling a spec Presto. :) >> >> Adam > > "WebCore" != "Web Core" any webkit engineer understands the difference ;) > > In all seriousness that's unfortunate. I find DOM to be rather antiquated in > this context. "Platorm Core" maybe...the core of the Web Platform. > > Jarred Given Adam's kidney shot point, I will have to renig and say DOM4. Everyone knows what it "means" even if the acronym can't be taken literally, and vendors refer to it heavily in code already. The point of HTML4 => HTML5 was well received. Jarred > >> >> >>> The "Web" semantic is popular, easy. >>> >>> The w3c lists are heavy with the "web" semantic: web apps, web components, >>> web events. >>> The primary dependency for DOMCore is named Web IDL. >>> >>> It'd give DOM3 some breathing room, to go down its own track. >>> >>> I'd much prefer to go around referring to Web IDL and Web Core. >>> >>> -Charles >>> >>> >>> >> >
Re: [DOM] Name
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: >> On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow >> wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest we >> name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD we >> publish a couple of weeks later). >> >> I propose calling it "Web Core". >> WC1 (Web Core version 1). > > WebCore is one of the major implementation components of WebKit. > Calling this spec Web Core might be confusing for folks who work on > WebKit. It would be somewhat like calling a spec Presto. :) > > Adam "WebCore" != "Web Core" any webkit engineer understands the difference ;) In all seriousness that's unfortunate. I find DOM to be rather antiquated in this context. "Platorm Core" maybe...the core of the Web Platform. Jarred > > >> The "Web" semantic is popular, easy. >> >> The w3c lists are heavy with the "web" semantic: web apps, web components, >> web events. >> The primary dependency for DOMCore is named Web IDL. >> >> It'd give DOM3 some breathing room, to go down its own track. >> >> I'd much prefer to go around referring to Web IDL and Web Core. >> >> -Charles >> >> >> >
Re: [DOM] Name
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow > wrote: > > 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. > > Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest we > name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD we > publish a couple of weeks later). > > I propose calling it "Web Core". > WC1 (Web Core version 1). WebCore is one of the major implementation components of WebKit. Calling this spec Web Core might be confusing for folks who work on WebKit. It would be somewhat like calling a spec Presto. :) Adam > The "Web" semantic is popular, easy. > > The w3c lists are heavy with the "web" semantic: web apps, web components, > web events. > The primary dependency for DOMCore is named Web IDL. > > It'd give DOM3 some breathing room, to go down its own track. > > I'd much prefer to go around referring to Web IDL and Web Core. > > -Charles > > >
Re: [DOM] Name
Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest we name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD we publish a couple of weeks later). I propose calling it "Web Core". WC1 (Web Core version 1). Without hesitation, I concur. +1 Jarred It needs DOM on the name, so it is really not suitable. I think DOM4 is definitely the way to go, kind like how html5 completely replaced html4.
Re: [DOM] Name
On 9/5/11 8:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:08:25 +0200, Charles Pritchard wrote: I propose calling it "Web Core". WC1 (Web Core version 1). It is a somewhat compelling idea, but I think we should keep "DOM" in the name given that everything it builds on did too. The "Web" semantic is popular, easy. All our specifications are about the web. "Web" is just the new "X" (Extensible), not very useful. I don't believe the "Document" semantic is as appropriate to web apps as it was in the 90s. I understand that "everything is a document" is a popular opinion. "X" has traditionally been used for markup language, as an abbreviation for XML. The ML suffix is also popular, also used for XML documents. DOMCore provides a base system for the interconnection of a heterogeneous network of objects, whether documents, scripting objects, user agents, or client/server machines. "Web" seems appropriate. Corresponding to the same "web platform" that Web IDL targets. Otherwise stated: "Web Core" is the base system used to transfer Web IDL objects. The DOM semantic is already overloaded. Here's an example of how that semantic baggage requires disambiguation. http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/ "The term DOM is used to refer to the API set made available to scripts in Web applications, and does not necessarily imply the existence of an actual Document object or of any other Node objects as defined in the DOM Core specifications" In the references section, [DOMCORE] refers to "Web DOM Core". That's two examples of the cost of maintaining the DOM semantic. Messaging specifications would benefit, particularly that one: The reference would be fixed to say "Web Core", [DOMEVENTS] and [DOMCORE] would be changed to [WEBCORE], "DOM events" to "Web Core Events", the terminology warning removed and [WEBCORE] added to dependencies. -Charles
Re: [DOM] Name
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:08:25 +0200, Charles Pritchard wrote: I propose calling it "Web Core". WC1 (Web Core version 1). It is a somewhat compelling idea, but I think we should keep "DOM" in the name given that everything it builds on did too. The "Web" semantic is popular, easy. All our specifications are about the web. "Web" is just the new "X" (Extensible), not very useful. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [DOM] Name
On Sep 4, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow >> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest >> we name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD >> we publish a couple of weeks later). > > I propose calling it "Web Core". > WC1 (Web Core version 1). Without hesitation, I concur. +1 Jarred > > The "Web" semantic is popular, easy. > > The w3c lists are heavy with the "web" semantic: web apps, web > components, web events. > The primary dependency for DOMCore is named Web IDL. > > It'd give DOM3 some breathing room, to go down its own track. > > I'd much prefer to go around referring to Web IDL and Web Core. > > -Charles > >
Re: [DOM] Name
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow wrote: 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. Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest we name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD we publish a couple of weeks later). I propose calling it "Web Core". WC1 (Web Core version 1). The "Web" semantic is popular, easy. The w3c lists are heavy with the "web" semantic: web apps, web components, web events. The primary dependency for DOMCore is named Web IDL. It'd give DOM3 some breathing room, to go down its own track. I'd much prefer to go around referring to Web IDL and Web Core. -Charles
[DOM] Name
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow wrote: 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. Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest we name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD we publish a couple of weeks later). -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
