On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 06:10:47 +0100, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 3/1/11, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
These are the reasons they are intertwined:
* document.createEvent()
That was previously DocumentEvent interface, IIRC.
Implementations put it on Document
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 04:43:04 +0100, Shiki Okasaka
shiki.okas...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess the reason behind this has been discussed around:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2010OctDec/0081.html
Actually what are the blocking issues why DOM Core does not state like,
* we want Node to inherit from EventTarget
That can be stated in DOM Core. For example: The Node Interface
implements EventTarget [Events Core].
I guess the reason behind this has been discussed around:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2010OctDec/0081.html
Actually
2011/3/3 Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com:
On 3/2/11, Shiki Okasaka shiki.okas...@gmail.com wrote:
* we want Node to inherit from EventTarget
That can be stated in DOM Core. For example: The Node Interface
implements EventTarget [Events Core].
I guess the reason behind this has been
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:15:25 +0100, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote:
I will remove my objection to publish DOM Core if: 1) conflicts (rather
than extensions) are removed from the draft, or reconciled with changes
in DOM3 Events; and 2) for those changes that have broad consensus, we
can
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:59:45 +0100, Adrian Bateman
adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
Something boxed out at the start of the Events section would be great
for now.
Added:
https://bitbucket.org/ms2ger/dom-core/changeset/a997dac35d91
Hopefully we can make sure that the drafts are aligned and if
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:51:24 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
What conflicts or contradictions exist currently? Does anyone have a
list?
Some time ago I put a list in the draft:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#dom-events
Glenn Maynard and I are still
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:49:48 +0100, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
| DOM Core defines the event and document model the Web platform uses.
That says that DOM Core defines two different things: events and DOM.
Some things might implement DOM Events Core (or a subinterface
thereof)
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:15:25 +0100, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote:
I would still like to help edit that specification, to bring a
slightly different perspective and approach, and to coordinate between
DOM3 Events and DOM Core, and I
On 3/1/11, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:49:48 +0100, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
| DOM Core defines the event and document model the Web platform uses.
That says that DOM Core defines two different things: events and DOM.
Some things might
On Friday, February 25, 2011 1:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
The idea is to provide a better definition of the events model at a more
appropriate location. I do not think DOM Level 3 Events is the right way
forward, but I am happy to work in parallel to see which turns out
better in the
Le 28 févr. 2011 à 17:59, Adrian Bateman a écrit :
My preference is to not have two drafts in the WebApps working group with
conflicting specification of the same feature.
Looking at
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#events
and
On 2/28/11, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2011 1:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
The idea is to provide a better definition of the events model at a
more
appropriate location. I do not think DOM Level 3 Events is the right
way
forward, but I am
On Feb 24, 2011, at 5:21 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Anne-
I object to publishing a Working Draft of the DOM Core spec that includes DOM
Events.
Introducing conflicting specifications that cover the same materials
dramatically harms interoperability, and the idea of competing
On Feb 26, 2011, at 7:15 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
I will remove my objection to publish DOM Core if: 1) conflicts (rather than
extensions) are removed from the draft, or reconciled with changes in DOM3
Events; and 2) for those changes that have broad consensus, we can integrate
them
Hi, folks-
I have no problem changing the DOM3 Events spec if that's the behavior
that implementers want specified. I'd love for it to be as clear,
simple, and precise as possible, and I have been asking for specific
feedback for the past few years; while we have gotten a lot of good
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:21:44 +0100, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote:
Finally, at TPAC, when we discussed working on DOM Core and DOM 3 Events
in parallel, we did not agree to adding events to DOM Core; in fact,
we agreed to exactly the opposite: you wanted to move mutation events
into
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:21:44 +0100, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote:
Finally, at TPAC, when we discussed working on DOM Core and DOM 3
Events in parallel, we did not agree to adding events to DOM Core;
in fact, we agreed to exactly the
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 01:57:04 +0100, Adrian Bateman
adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
Of course it's true that the status doesn't imply everyone agrees with
everything and I'm okay with that but heartbeat working drafts are
intended to show forward progress and this feels like a retrograde step
Doug,
Le 25 févr. 2011 à 02:21, Doug Schepers a écrit :
Finally, at TPAC, when we discussed working on DOM Core and DOM 3 Events in
parallel,
Would it help if the DOM 3 Events was republished at the same time, with a note
pointing to the work done in DOM Core. Something along.
The
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:21 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Anne and Ms2ger (representing Mozilla Foundation) have continued to work
on the DOM Core spec and they propose publishing a new Working Draft of
the spec:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
As such, this
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:26:19 +0100, Adrian Bateman
adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
I'm concerned about the working group endorsing a working draft with
phrasing like The timeStamp attribute must be useless. I understand
there are issues related to this (e.g. ISSUE-172) but this doesn't seem
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:37 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:26:19 +0100, Adrian Bateman
adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
I'm concerned about the working group endorsing a working draft with
phrasing like The timeStamp attribute must be useless. I understand
there
Hi, Anne-
I object to publishing a Working Draft of the DOM Core spec that
includes DOM Events.
Introducing conflicting specifications that cover the same materials
dramatically harms interoperability, and the idea of competing
specifications is an anti-pattern when it comes to
24 matches
Mail list logo
