Re: CfC: to publish a Last Call Working Draft of DOM 3 Events; deadline September 3
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:48:18 +0200, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote: There are still still some outstanding issues, which we intend to address in LC; many of them are marked up specifically to solicit wider review and comments, which is generally more forthcoming during LC. The goal is to collect these comments so we are ready to discuss them during TPAC. We expect we will have to have another LC. So, are these intended as LC comments (which I'm happy to address), or as an argument against going to LC? Somewhat against a Last Call. After all, Last Call is for when we think we are done. Although this is often not the case (see e.g. XMLHttpRequest), if we know it is not, it seems too early to issue one. Looking through it a bit more the mousewheel event seems gone. I thought we agreed long ago that would be part of it. (Various notes in the specification do mention it, but it seems they are included by accident.) Yes, we included 'mousewheel' as recently as 7 months ago, but I removed it based on implementer feedback. I've now removed the stray reference to it in the Changes section. Do you maybe have a pointer to that implementor feedback? I would have expected at least some kind of announcement email like mousewheel event dropped. I just searched through www-dom and could not find any discussion. The only other place it's mentioned is in the 'wheel' event as an informative comparison. It also says user agents may dispatch one of those events. I'm not really sure how this is supposed to give us interoperability. I'll try to review more closely on Monday. Thanks. Please let us know if you object to us going to LC, given our plan of record. (Note: I will be at the SVG Open conference and SVG WG F2F starting on Monday, for the next week and a half, and will probably not be very responsive.) -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: CfC: to publish a Last Call Working Draft of DOM 3 Events; deadline September 3
Hi, Anne- Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 8/29/10 4:07 AM): On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:48:18 +0200, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote: There are still still some outstanding issues, which we intend to address in LC; many of them are marked up specifically to solicit wider review and comments, which is generally more forthcoming during LC. The goal is to collect these comments so we are ready to discuss them during TPAC. We expect we will have to have another LC. So, are these intended as LC comments (which I'm happy to address), or as an argument against going to LC? Somewhat against a Last Call. After all, Last Call is for when we think we are done. Although this is often not the case (see e.g. XMLHttpRequest), if we know it is not, it seems too early to issue one. Sorry, I should have set expectations better. Those of us who were working on DOM3 Events during the telcons, specifically Travis Leithead, Olli Pettay, and me, believe that DOM3 Events is feature complete, and while we understand that there are known points on which people will raise issue (such as the ones you are raising now), and are willing to change the spec to match that LC feedback, we don't expect the spec to change its feature set. (BTW, I've already changed most of what you asked for with 'scroll'.) There are a few places where we would also like to put in more examples or informative wording, but we didn't feel that should block Last Call. As you say, with specs that have a long history, like DOM3 Events or XMLHttpRequest, there is always likely to be difference of opinion over whether it is done, or done to the satisfaction of the entire group. I expect that long after DOM3 Events or XHR or even HTML5 are Recommendations, there will be people who are not happy with the spec. In my opinion, disagreement with some aspect of the spec is not sufficient rationale to block it from progressing to LC, if the technical details are sound. If the group decides to change something, I will change it; I have changed, added, and dropped many things I personally didn't agree with, many of them based on your feedback; If anything, I will treat LC feedback even more carefully. Obviously, this spec is not going to progress to CR unless the group feels it is ready, so I would like to take that first step of going to LC despite there being some areas of disagreement, even as you did with XHR. If you will recall, I supported going to LC (twice) and CR for that spec, even though I disagreed (and still disagree) with some of the decisions. I'm asking for the same courtesy; if there are indeed technical issues with DOM3 Event that are raised during LC, then we will address them as a group and resolve them. I'm headed to the airport now, so I'll address your comments about mousewheel in another email. I've CCed Olli and Travis, and ask them send in their rationale for dropping 'mousewheel'. (I believe it was pretty fully specced when we dropped it, so it would be easy to add it again.) Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Re: CfC: to publish a Last Call Working Draft of DOM 3 Events; deadline September 3
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:32:13 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: Doug and the folks working on the DOM 3 Events spec believe the spec is now feature-complete and would like to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the spec. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish the following document as the LCWD: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html There still seem to be a open issues (marked up in the specification). A comment I raised on the 'scroll' event some weeks ago is also not addressed. (Just noticed that the references section contains a reference to XHTML but that is never referenced from the draft. The HTML5 and CSS 2.1 references are out of date.) Looking through it a bit more the mousewheel event seems gone. I thought we agreed long ago that would be part of it. (Various notes in the specification do mention it, but it seems they are included by accident.) I'll try to review more closely on Monday. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: CfC: to publish a Last Call Working Draft of DOM 3 Events; deadline September 3
Hi, Anne- There are still still some outstanding issues, which we intend to address in LC; many of them are marked up specifically to solicit wider review and comments, which is generally more forthcoming during LC. The goal is to collect these comments so we are ready to discuss them during TPAC. We expect we will have to have another LC. So, are these intended as LC comments (which I'm happy to address), or as an argument against going to LC? Replies inline... Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 8/28/10 6:03 AM): On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:32:13 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: Doug and the folks working on the DOM 3 Events spec believe the spec is now feature-complete and would like to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the spec. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish the following document as the LCWD: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html There still seem to be a open issues (marked up in the specification). Yes, this is by design. We believe the spec is feature complete, but we know there are outstanding issues we want feedback on. A comment I raised on the 'scroll' event some weeks ago is also not addressed. Sorry, I see I started a reply there, but never sent it (sigh); I will send it now. I think that issue needs more discussion, but I'm happy to change it during LC if that's the group consensus. (Just noticed that the references section contains a reference to XHTML but that is never referenced from the draft. The HTML5 and CSS 2.1 references are out of date.) Removed XHTML (an artifact from an earlier draft), updated the other references. Looking through it a bit more the mousewheel event seems gone. I thought we agreed long ago that would be part of it. (Various notes in the specification do mention it, but it seems they are included by accident.) Yes, we included 'mousewheel' as recently as 7 months ago, but I removed it based on implementer feedback. I've now removed the stray reference to it in the Changes section. The only other place it's mentioned is in the 'wheel' event as an informative comparison. I'll try to review more closely on Monday. Thanks. Please let us know if you object to us going to LC, given our plan of record. (Note: I will be at the SVG Open conference and SVG WG F2F starting on Monday, for the next week and a half, and will probably not be very responsive.) Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
CfC: to publish a Last Call Working Draft of DOM 3 Events; deadline September 3
Doug and the folks working on the DOM 3 Events spec believe the spec is now feature-complete and would like to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the spec. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish the following document as the LCWD: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement for this LCWD. Note that as specified in the Process Document [PD], a Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working Draft; * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies with other groups; As with all of WebApps' CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is September 3. Please send all comments to the DOM list (www-...@w3.org). -Art Barstow [PD] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
