W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > August 2006

Re: XBL in CSS

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:20:23 -0700
Message-ID: <000901c6c264$7afb8560$db02000a@internal.toppro.net>
To: <www-style@w3.org>, <public-appformats@w3.org>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
To: <www-style@w3.org>; <public-appformats@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: XBL in CSS

| On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:44:15 -0700, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> wrote:
| >> My proposal would be to put the 'binding' property in the XBL
| >> specification, rather than in the CSS specifications, thus making it
| >> only a requirement if you implement XBL.
| >
| > It doesn't matter what spec you put it in, it's still in CSS. (It's also
| > not very user-friendly to put a part of CSS in a spec that is published
| > by another WG than the CSS WG, but we can maybe solve that with a good
| > catalog of properties.)
| >
| > Sure, there can be profiles of CSS. Printers don't do :hover and they
| > won't do XBL either. But the general principle is that an
| > implementation on a platform that could do feature X, *should* do
| > feature X. Optional features aren't good.
| FWIW, you need XBL for the property to be useful. It makes no sense for a  
| UA to support binding while not supporting XBL so it kind of makes sense  
| to have it in the XBL specification, imho. Of course, having an overview  
| of all CSS properties (and other stuff like selectors etc.) including the  
| necessary pointers would be quite useful.

"you need XBL for the property to be useful" - but why?

binding (linking) can establish link between DOM element and some object
in ECMAScript providing implementation of event handlers.

Or is this task left for the 'behaviour' attribute?

Andrew Fedoniouk.
Received on Friday, 18 August 2006 01:20:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:50:05 UTC