[ 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 features e.g. the
feature set in the DOM L3 Core spec.
There are advantages to the monolithic/kitchen-sink approach and, as we
have seen with other large specification efforts, there aredisadvantages
too. In general, I prefer smaller specs with a tight{er,ish} scope and I
think there should be compelling reasons to take the monolithic
approach, especially if there is a single editor. Regardless of the
approach, the minimal editor(s) requirements are: previous credible
experience, technical competence in the area, demonstrated ability to
seek consensus with all of the participants and willingness to comply
with the W3C's procedures for publishing documents.
In the case of AvK's DOM spec, there has been some progressive feature
creep. For instance, the 31-May-2011 WD included a new chapter on Events
(with some overlap with D3 Events). The 2-Aug-2011 ED proposed for
publication includes a new chapter on Traversal. Additionally, the ED
still includes a stub section for mutation events which is listed as a
separate deliverable in group's charter ("Asynchronous DOM Mutation
Notification (ADMN)").
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 various additional features of DOM e.g. Traversal, Mutation Events,
etc. to be specified in separate specs; and b) why. Additionally, if you
prefer features be spec'ed separately, please indicate your willingness
and availability to contribute as an editor vis-à-vis the editor
requirements above.
-ArtB
On 8/4/11 2:24 PM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:12 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Anne would like to publish a new WD of DOM Core and this is a Call for
Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Agreeing with this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support for the contents of the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send
them topublic-weba...@w3.org by August 10 at the latest.
Positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be
considered as agreement with the proposal.
Microsoft has some concerns about this document:
1. We have received feedback from both customers and teams at Microsoft that
the name DOM Core is causing confusion with the previous versions of DOM Core.
We request that the specification be named DOM Level 4 Core. The original Web
DOM Core name would also be acceptable.
2. The scope of the document is unclear. Microsoft believes that the document
should focus on core DOM interfaces to improve interoperability for DOM Core
in the web platform and to incorporate errata. If there are problems with
other specification such as Traversal, those documents should be amended.
This functionality shouldn't be pulled into DOM Core. We believe improvements
for mutation events should be kept a separate deliverable for this working
group (ADMN).
We would prefer to see these issues addressed before moving ahead with
publication.
Thanks,
Adrian.
