On 09/07/2011 05:09 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com 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
On 9/9/11 6:27 AM, ext Olli Pettay wrote:
On 09/07/2011 05:09 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Arthur
Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Some members of the group consider the D3E spec as the highest
priority of
our DOM-related specs and they have put considerable
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com 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
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
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
On 9/5/11 3:34 PM, ext Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
We should make these kinds of
decisions *solely* on technical grounds.
Well surely making decisions on technical grounds is important. However,
it seems a bit simplistic to consider it the only factor. (I seem to
recall some previous decisions
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.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
I think defining all of these in one specification is fine. Currently the
specification is only 37 pages when printed. That will certainly grow once
we add ranges, examples, and more introductory text, but will also
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:52:34 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Is this explicitly mentioned in the spec? Otherwise how will anyone be
able to take advantage of this fact?
I guess we could explicitly mention it somewhere. On the other hand,
everything has references and
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
The point is that if it's just a chapter in a larger spec, how do I
know that there isn't other important information in the larger spec
that I have to read in order to get a understanding of the full
feature.
The same
On Aug 22, 2011, at 11:47 , James Graham wrote:
I don't really understand your point here. If you used the smaller document
presumably you could just have easily have read the relevant chapter from the
larger document.
[...snip...]
Small specs encourage people - including the spec editors -
Le 22 août 2011 à 05:47, James Graham a écrit :
Small specs encourage people - including the spec editors - to perceive that
features are more self-contained than they really are
Note that in some circumstances it might have some benefits in forcing
orthogonality. Our tools and cultural
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:47 AM, James Graham jgra...@opera.com wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:22 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/
I *always* used the much smaller document that used to be available here:
On 08/22/2011 11:22 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/
I *always* used the much smaller document that used to be available here:
www.whatwg.org/specs/web-workers/current-work/
I don't really understand your point here. If you used the smaller
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote:
At Microsoft, we also prefer smaller more specific specifications for
all the same reasons that it makes sense to engineer software in
smaller, more modular parts.
* It is easier to implement and test smaller modules. Developers find it
easier
On Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:29 AM, 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
[ 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
Hi Art,
(CCing some people you apparently forget to CC, but who might have an
opinion on this matter, and a stake in the outcome of the discussion.)
On 08/11/2011 12:28 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[ Topic changed to how to organize the group's DOM specs ... ]
Hi Adrian, Anne, Doug, Jacob,
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
