- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 22:05:12 -0400
- To: herve.girod@club-internet.fr
- CC: public-appformats@w3.org
Hervé Girod wrote: > I just saw on W3C Web site that Web appformats WG has released a Last > Call Working Draft for XBL 2.0, and I have some questions about the WG > strategy about XBL 2.0 / sXBL relationship. From the XBL 2.0 Last Call working draft: | Although they have had related histories, this specification is | separate from the W3C's "sXBL" drafts, and is not compatible with | them. (The two efforts use different namespaces, for one.) > - will the sXBL working draft be dropped in favor of the more general > XBL 2.0 (there is a specific chapter on XBL 2.0 with SVG, and it seems, > by looking at the table of contents, that the xSBL TOC is a subset of > XBL 2. TOC too) ? I've heard rumors that sXBL is dead. The working draft for sXBL is over a year old. Considering that XBL 2.0 is now in Last Call, it's probably a safe bet that the rumors are true. > - is sXBL a subset of XBL 2.0, or is there some ([voluntary]) subtle > differences between the two recomandations ? Originally, sXBL was supposed to be a subset of XBL 2.0 for SVG, and XBL 2.0 would have been based on sXBL once the specification reached maturity. I think what happened is when sXBL stalled, they went ahead with XBL 2.0 and broke compatibility with sXBL as it became increasingly outdated.
Received on Sunday, 10 September 2006 02:05:38 UTC