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

Re: [XBL] XBL 2.0 Language usability

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:33:42 +0900
Message-Id: <0EC063AA-029A-4219-AA9C-2BB63D46AEB8@w3.org>
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>


Le 06-10-06 à 08:56, Ian Hickson a écrit :

> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 karl@w3.org wrote:
>>
>> The specification might be misused because of [the changes from  
>> XBL1 to
>> XBL2].
>>
>> Changing names might be ok. But renaming an element by giving it a  
>> name
>> of another elements is leading to troubles.
>
> While true, in this particular case since the elements have different
> namespaces, and since XBL1 never had a large user base, we feel the  
> new
> names are worth any minor migration pain that may occur. In  
> practice, it
> is nearly impossible to not notice the difference, since the  
> elements have
> radically different behaviour and picking the wrong one will have
> completely different effects.

specifically!

>> There is also the element attribute, which will be more than  
>> confusing
>> for many people. ex: "The binding element attribute is element"
>
> Actually that's not really been very confusing so far. I originally
> thought it would be (IIRC it wasn't me that came up with that  
> name), but
> it hasn't been nearly as confusing as I had predicted.


Let's hope, it will be that way.

>>    XBL 1       XBL2
>>    content     template
>>    children    content
>>
>> Then it is possible to write in the _same_ specification, things like
>> "content" element has been deprecated. content element is …
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here; nothing is deprecated in XBL2.

Hmm indeed, not deprecated, travesti in another element name.

>> It is often said by some groups inside and outside W3C. That  
>> usability
>> of the language is very important. For example, some people  
>> complained
>> about the "l" element in XHTML 2.0. XBL 2 is taking the same road?  
>> Is it
>> the only possible solution?
>>
>> Please minimize ambiguities by changing names.
>
> The current names were the result of a significant investment in time
> trying to get various vendors agreed, and I really don't want to  
> reopen
> that discussion at this late stage...
>
> Please let me know if you disagree with this.

not disagreeing, crossing fingers.



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 07:29:12 UTC

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