On 30/12/2005 18:46, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Michael Winter wrote:
[snip]
The DOM Level 3 Events module has been a Working Group Note since
November 2003. This probably marks the end of its development.
I hope not, and I do not think so, taking both the provision
| This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or
| obsoleted by other documents at any time.
and the long development cycle [...]
Yes, I realise this, but it's process status is significant:
Working Group Note
A Working Group Note is published by a chartered Working
Group to indicate that work has ended on a particular topic.
A Working Group MAY publish a Working Group Note with or
without its prior publication as a Working Draft.
-- 7.1.3 Maturity Levels When Ending Work on a Technical
Report, W3C Technical Report Development Process[1]
Furthermore:
Work on a technical report MAY cease at any time. When a
Working Group completes its work on a technical report, it
publishes it either as a Recommendation or a Working Group
Note. For example, a Working Group might publish several
Working Drafts of a requirements document, and then indicate
that it no longer plans to work on the requirements document by
publishing a Working Group Note.
Work MAY also cease because W3C determines that it cannot
productively carry the work any further. For instance, the
Director might close a Working Group, the participants might
lose interest in a technical report, or the ideas might be
subsumed by another technical report. If W3C decides to
discontinue work on a technical report before completion, the
technical report SHOULD be published as a Working Group Note.
Possible next steps:
- End state: A technical report MAY remain a Working Group
Note indefinitely
- Otherwise: A Working Group MAY resume work on the technical
report as a Working Draft
-- 7.5 Ending Work on a Technical Report, W3C
Technical Report Development Process[2]
The Working Draft Note status is an end to the development life-cycle.
It's not necessarily permanent, but if they're having difficulty moving
in the direction they'd like to go (virtual keys aren't
backwards-compatible, after all), they might have decided to drop it and
work on other modules that will have more chance of immediate success.
I searched the mailing list archives a while ago to see if the reasons
behind the decision were made public, but I didn't find anything and I'm
not so concerned so that I'm moved to inquire.
Mike
[1] <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#q75>
[2] <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#tr-end>
--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.