RE: publish new WD of DOM Core; deadline August 10
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 to public-webapps@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.
Re: publish new WD of DOM Core; deadline August 10
On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:24:47 +0200, Adrian Bateman wrote: 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. We already agreed to this name change earlier. Lets not go back and forth on this. 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. The specification already provides a whole framework for defining traversal. Doing it elsewhere would just be duplicate work. The "Goals" and "Issues" section should give an indication of the scope of this document. The document defines the DOM platform. 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). I am not sure what ADMN means. If we want to define mutation events in detail (to avoid past mistakes) they should be defined in conjunction with methods such as insertBefore(), etc. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
RE: publish new WD of DOM Core; deadline August 10
On Thursday, August 04, 2011 11:51 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:24:47 +0200, Adrian Bateman > wrote: > > 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. > > We already agreed to this name change earlier. Lets not go back and forth > on this. The name was changed. We weren't terribly keen on the change. It is now causing problems. I've had multiple people contact me confused about this. We should fix the problem. > > 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). > > I am not sure what ADMN means. This is in the WG charter.
Re: publish new WD of DOM Core; deadline August 10
On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:06:58 +0200, Adrian Bateman wrote: The name was changed. We weren't terribly keen on the change. It is now causing problems. I've had multiple people contact me confused about this. We should fix the problem. Alright, how about "DOM4"? 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). I am not sure what ADMN means. This is in the WG charter. Thanks. (FWIW, several proposals so far have been synchronous.) -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: publish new WD of DOM Core; deadline August 10
On 8/4/11 12:21 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:06:58 +0200, Adrian Bateman wrote: The name was changed. We weren't terribly keen on the change. It is now causing problems. I've had multiple people contact me confused about this. We should fix the problem. Alright, how about "DOM4"? I suspect it is the inclusion of the word "core" that causes the confusion, not the lack of a version number. If you google "dom core" you get lots of hits for various old Level 2 and Level 3 specs. Given how much this spec removes from level 2 and level 3, it seem strange to give it a version number in the same series... How about "WebDOM" instead? David 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). I am not sure what ADMN means. This is in the WG charter. Thanks. (FWIW, several proposals so far have been synchronous.)
Re: publish new WD of DOM Core; deadline August 10
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:17:30 +0200, David Flanagan wrote: On 8/4/11 12:21 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Alright, how about "DOM4"? I suspect it is the inclusion of the word "core" that causes the confusion, not the lack of a version number. If you google "dom core" you get lots of hits for various old Level 2 and Level 3 specs. Given how much this spec removes from level 2 and level 3, it seem strange to give it a version number in the same series... How about "WebDOM" instead? I am not really a fan of the "Web" prefix anymore. It is pretty clear these are specifications for the web platform. No need to say so in the title. We prefixed it initially because we thought there would be a group of people against a somewhat drastic revision of the DOM. This turned out much better than expected so we could drop the prefix. I think we are now at the point where we could drop the suffix. The reason for giving it a version number is that the W3C works with snapshots at the moment. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: publish new WD of DOM Core; deadline August 10
On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:21:46 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:06:58 +0200, Adrian Bateman wrote: The name was changed. We weren't terribly keen on the change. It is now causing problems. I've had multiple people contact me confused about this. We should fix the problem. Alright, how about "DOM4"? Adrian, could you please answer the question? Not participating at all in the development of DOM Core, then objecting when publishing, and then not responding when I try to suggest alternative ways to move forward is not a nice way to cooperate within a WG. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
RE: publish new WD of DOM Core; deadline August 10
On Monday, August 15, 2011 2:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:21:46 +0200, Anne van Kesteren > wrote: > > On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:06:58 +0200, Adrian Bateman > > wrote: > >> The name was changed. We weren't terribly keen on the change. It is now > >> causing problems. I've had multiple people contact me confused about > >> this. We should fix the problem. > > > > Alright, how about "DOM4"? > > Adrian, could you please answer the question? Not participating at all in > the development of DOM Core, then objecting when publishing, and then not > responding when I try to suggest alternative ways to move forward is not a > nice way to cooperate within a WG. Hi Anne, My apologies for not replying more promptly. I'm representing Microsoft here and not only my personal views and you'll appreciate that sometimes it takes a little time to organise this. I'm sure the same applies at Opera too so thanks for your patience. It's harder to participate without understanding the scope of the problems being solved. As I wrote in the separate thread to Art, we prefer a scoped spec where we've agreed which problems we're trying to solve rather than something open ended. "DOM4" seems a bit too unbounded in that context but agreeing on the goals for this spec, be it Core or something else will help answer the questions. I think there are some good ideas in this spec including some things that will be helpful to developers to have written down. We spent a lot of time while we were building IE9 testing to see which parts of the DOM specs were applicable to the browsable web platform. This is something we will continue to help with though our immediate priority is helping to move DOM L3 Events forward. Cheers, Adrian.
Re: publish new WD of DOM Core; deadline August 10
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:52:33 +0200, Adrian Bateman wrote: It's harder to participate without understanding the scope of the problems being solved. Bringing that point up just before publication as a means to block said publication is not helpful. There has been ample opportunity for Microsoft to discuss this. As I wrote in the separate thread to Art, we prefer a scoped spec where we've agreed which problems we're trying to solve rather than something open ended. "DOM4" seems a bit too unbounded in that context but agreeing on the goals for this spec, be it Core or something else will help answer the questions. The goals of the specification are listed in the specification. I have clarified them even further hoping it will resolve the stated confusion. http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#goals I think there are some good ideas in this spec including some things that will be helpful to developers to have written down. We spent a lot of time while we were building IE9 testing to see which parts of the DOM specs were applicable to the browsable web platform. This is something we will continue to help with though our immediate priority is helping to move DOM L3 Events forward. Looking forward to your first set of technical feedback. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
