On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:35:15 +0100, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote:
I continue to think that RFC2119 terms are overused, used unnecessarily
and redundantly in a manner that will cause future pain, and used in
manners that do not directly map to clear testable features, which I
think is problematic. However, I don't really know how to convince you
that this is a real problem.
I just took a look at the draft and agree with this assessment.
As far as I can tell the only requirements this specification needs to
make are regarding how to implement the interface. When events are
dispatched etc. is up to other specifications.
I can see some value in this specification giving advice as to what the
names of the events should be and what order they should be dispatched in,
but that should only be advice to specification authors, not requirements
on user agents. The requirements on user agents should be elsewhere.
I can also see some value in this specification providing macros. E.g.
defining what it means to "dispatch a progress event called x" so that not
every specification has to do that again and that they are encouraged to
do the same thing with regards to whether events bubble, can be cancelled,
etc. (HTML5 does this as well for some event types.)
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
