Re: [XBL] "Semantics"

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Jon Ferraiolo wrote:
>
> A couple years ago, I disliked the use of the term "semantics" in the 
> sXBL spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/sXBL/#introduction, paragraph 3) and 
> today I still dislike it in the XBL2 spec (3rd paragraph, still). I 
> think it is too ideologic for a W3C spec.

I don't understand. Why can't a W3C spec be ideologic?


> XBL is just some technology that performs a transformation on a source 
> document to produce a modified document which creates a bunch of shadow 
> trees based on XBL's well-defined processing model. While it is true 
> that the most common expected use of XBL is to control presentation and 
> interactive behavior, clever developers might use XBL for other 
> purposes, some of which might alter some of the "semantics".

I don't understand how (short of having script actually go in and mutate 
the DOM, of course). The whole point is that the underlying meaning isn't 
changed, just like CSS doesn't change the underlying meaning.


> It's not a big deal if this sentence remains, but it would be better 
> either to just remove discussion of "semantics" entirely or water it 
> down by rephrasing the sentence to say that the *target use case* is to 
> preserve the semantics of the original elements where XBL is used to 
> define presentation and interactive behavior for elements within a 
> document.

The current state of the spec *is* the watered down version. I don't want 
to water it down any further, it might become homoeopathic! :-)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2007 04:52:48 UTC