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

Re: [XBL] Address Extensibility in XBL 2.0

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:21:20 +0900
Message-Id: <814ACD73-3646-4E70-A625-60219B5D4AAD@w3.org>
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
To: Dean Jackson <dino@w3.org>


Le 26 oct. 2006 à 19:42, Dean Jackson a écrit :
> On 06/10/2006, at 9:06 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> This is the only extension mechanism allowed. Other extensions  
>> would make
>> a UA non-conformant. Content that uses the mechanism described  
>> above would
>> be non-conformant. The only reason this is mentioned at all is to  
>> avoid
>> two implementations using the same attribute name for that feature.

I still think it is good to remind people in an Extension section.

>> No, all unexpected attributes must be ignored. If moz-binary="" is
>> supported, it's clearly not unexpected, and therefore wouldn't be  
>> ignored.

Hmmm…
This is a circular reasoning, which means exactly than anything can  
be added.
Or maybe there is a different explanation. In another comment, it has  
been asked to define "unexpected context" and "expected context". It  
has been said that it was not necessary. We can see that it is not  
clear in fact.

- Expected context defined by the specification ?
- Expected contexy defined by the implementation ?

Here it is advocated by the implementation, which makes the  
specification pointless.

>> It is unclear exactly what exactly you are asking for; if you could
>> suggest some text that would be helpful. The intent of the spec is  
>> that no
>> extensions to XBL itself be made (though of course other languages  
>> could
>> be layered on top of XBL, just like XBL is expected to be layered  
>> onto
>> HTML and SVG documents).

Other languages as long as they are in their namespaces are other  
technologies. It doesn't matter.

>> Any such extensions would be non-conformant and
>> must be ignored, with one exception that is explicitly mentioned.  
>> This is
>> already explicit in the spec (in the text you quote above, e.g.).
>
> The WG agree with what Ian says above. Karl, could you please  
> respond to
> say whether you accept this or not?

No traces here
http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues
And I have checked in the minutes of the last F2F (24, 25, 26) and I  
do not see where it has been discussed by the WG.

Could you give the pointer to the recorded discussion?
Same goes for issues I have sent in different emails.

Thanks.

-- 
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 Thursday, 26 October 2006 11:22:04 UTC

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