Re: ISSUE-119: names lengthComputable and total

[Jean-Yves Bitterlich]

Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Dec 10, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Jean-Yves Bitterlich wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: Ikivo have told me that they also implemented already with the existing event names, and would write to say so. I am therefore resolving this issue by not changing the names. I don't think the JSR objection is very strong, since JSR-280 says: "Note – Note that MouseWheelEvent and ProgressEvent are newly included in the W3C DOM3 draft specification and have not yet gone through the W3C public review.  These W3C specifications are therefore to be considered as work in progress. There may be some modifications to these event types in the JSR280 Maintenance Release to ensure alignment with the DOM3 Event types." This clause has been added in respect to the agreement between W3C and Sun/JSR-280 given the current state of the related W3C specifications. Sure, and I think we need to respect the spirit and not just the letter of that agreement. It seems like a bad idea to freeze W3C specs in very early development just because a faster-moving standards process copies them. In general I don't think we want to set a precedent of locking in bad names in Editor's Drafts without a compelling reason. An implementation alone is not much reason, there would have to be significant content depending on it. agreed. However, JSR-280 is Final Release: i.e. a Reference Implementation (RI) as well as a Test and Compatibility Kit (TCK) are available and licensed/licensable; Moreover a development kit  is also available and compliant. This looks compelling enough ... too me :-) Maybe I should also have mentioned that 2 other JSRs are on they way out: - JSR-287 (SVG2) has reached Proposed Final Draft - JSR-290 (XML UI Markup) is soon to be Public Review. Both refer and require JSR-280 as-is either full or subset. What would look compelling to me is web content depending on the specific names. That's more important than whether someone shipped an implementation. slightly disagreeing ... a referee standard brings as much support as an implementation to a W3C spec in particular when the former standardization body defines strict compliance rules. Still you can consider here JSR-280 being a particular implementation out in the wild. I'll admit that method naming isn't the biggest issue. But it seems like bad precedent to start giving weight to external standards that copy very early stage W3C standards, as this subverts the W3C's own standards process, which runs by different rules than the Java Community Process. Agree! and agree! (however ... special case here) That is the reason why the method naming here is almost not worth talking. However on the other ISSUE-118, we agreed and actively supported the move to actually make the event-behaviour pattern change ... for the sake of having a clean W3C spec even knowing that it would change the JSR-280 spec/ri/tck/dev-kit ... Regards, Maciej -- Jean-Yves H. Bitterlich Senior Staff Engineer Sun Microsystems GmbH Sonnenallee 1, 85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten, Germany Mobile: +49-172-8187243 Phone: +49-89-46008-1097 (x61097) Fax: +49-89-46008-2978 (x62978) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Bömer; Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028