W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hypertext-cg@w3.org > January to March 2011

HCG minutes Friday March 11, 2011, with XBL discussion

From: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:02:21 -0500
To: <public-hypertext-cg@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-html-cg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <013901cbe005$b5171c00$1f455400$@conversational-technologies.com>

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

              Hypertext Coordination Group Teleconference
                              11 Mar 2011

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/11-hcg-irc





     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]XBL
         2. [5]last calls
     * [6]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 11 March 2011

   <ChrisL> Art, are you calling in?

   <ChrisL> volunteer for minutes, please?

   <ChrisL> todays call will have public minutes

   <scribe> scribe: ddahl


   <ArtB> AB: as I mentioned on the HCG list, earlier this week I
   started a thread about moving XBL forward


   <ArtB> AB: in that e-mail I asked 4 questions, some of them
   intentionally provocative:

   <ArtB> [[

   <ArtB> * What is the latest implementation status of the XBL2 CR
   [XBL2-CR] and Hixie's September 2010 version [XBL-ED] (previously
   referred to as "XBL2-cutdown")?

   <ArtB> * Which members of WebApps want to continue with the
   XML-based version of XBL2 as codified in the XBL2 CR? If you are in
   this group, what firm commitments can you make to push the spec
   along the REC track? Would you object to the Forms WG taking over
   this spec?

   <ArtB> * Which members of WebApps want to continue with the non-XML
   version as Hixie created last September? If you are in this group,
   what firm commitments can you make to push this version along the
   REC track (especially implementation)?

   <ArtB> * Should the WG pursue Dimitri Glazkov's Component Model
   proposal [Component]? If yes, who is willing to commit to work on
   that spec?

   <ArtB> ]]

   <ArtB> I would summarize the responses as follows, noting there have
   only been a few days to comment:

   <ArtB> * XBL2-CR - Olli Petty (Mozilla) said he wants XBL2 work to
   continue (Mozilla previously announced they had done some XBL2
   implementation work) and he objects to it moving to the Forms WG.
   Anne van Kesteren (Opera) expressed some concerns about XBL2's
   complexity. Tab Atkins (Google; Chrome/WebKit) said XBL2 is "flawed"
   and he objects to continuing work on it. Ian Hickson (Google; Editor
   of XBL2) said he has no objections to someone continuing XBL2 and he
   expects XB

   art: Ian Hickson expects XBL to end up in HTML
   ... no one was interested in the cutdown model, there was interest
   in continuing the component model, Dmitri volunteered to edit the

   <ArtB> AB: that's a quick summary and before I turn over the mic, I
   would like to note that a whole lot has changed in the Web industry
   and W3C since work on XBL2 was started over five years ago. As such,
   I think it makes sense for WebApps to start work on the CM approach.
   However, I also think we need to be sensitive to the past
   investments in XBL2, especially since it has already been published
   as a CR.

   kurt: a couple of questions. the Forms WG has been looking at
   implications of XBL for XForms. With the XBL2 approach, what impact
   would that have on XForms?
   ... we were looking at impact of namespaces

   steven: XBL2 has namespaces

   art: there's no interest in pursuing the editor's draft of XBL2 from
   last September
   ... within WebApps

   steven: XForms is interested in an XBL2 solution

   art: wants to separate XBL2 from cutdown

   steven: cutdown from September doesn't cut it for us

   chris: to clarify, there are two implementations that use XBL "of
   some sort"?

   steven: not sure of details. Albion (??) says that they use the
   parts that are of interest to them. CSS isn't that useful. They do
   some juggling between XPath and CSS.
   ... the other implementation tries to use the Mozilla implementation
   when it can

   chris: it probably means that there's not enough implementation to
   get XBL out of CR

   art: there's not a test suite. if we were to prioritize the 20 or so
   specs that we're working on, in my opinion, XBL2 would be a low
   priority. there hasn't been that much discussion
   ... there are some people very interested in the component model.

   steven: how did this happen? you've inherited this spec, but there's
   no enthusiam. what's the history?

   art: the Web Applications Format WG, chartered in 2006, was working
   on it. The CR was published at the beginning of 2007, e.g. work on
   HTML5 and WebAPI. People have diverted their efforts to other specs.
   ... 2007 assumptions don't hold water anymore.

   kurt: is component model independent of XBL?
   ... Forms WG wants a consistent language for component-level

   art: the discussion is still pretty high level, at the use case

   <ArtB> [8]http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases

      [8] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases

   art: is that work within scope of the charter that we have now?
   There are a lot of TBD's about W3C would move forward.

   chris: existing XBL2 is completely stalled

   philippe: not clear that there's enough interest, just 1-2 people,
   for Rec-track work?

   art: is XBL of enough interest to the Forms community to move it

   steven: there is interest, it's possible, the problem is CSS
   Selectors. we could discuss it. the problem is manpower more than

   kurt: I would be interested in working on this

   art: that's good to know, the real question is whether there's
   commitment, not just interest.

   philippe: move XBL to Forms?

   chris: will it move forward?

   steven: Forms would cut it down to what's used in XForms and they
   say there are implementations

   philippe: that sounds like a good solution, take the spec, rename it
   and push forward with the features you need

   art: would wait to have discussion in WebApps until Forms makes a
   commitment to moving it forward in Forms

   steven: I think there's a good chance of this. we have some form of
   implementations, so it shouldn't be too much work

   philippe: we should rename the specification

   chris: there have already been too many names

   art: only Mozilla objects to it moving
   ... they didn't say why

   philippe: if we rename it and cut it down, it might be ok

   chris: sounds like a plan, subject to Forms WG agreeing to do that

   philippe: for Component Model in WebApps, if Dimitri wants to work
   on it
   ... they can do that

last calls

   <plh> plh: for the component model, it will take more than two
   individuals to support the work in order to change the charter

   chris: compositing spec LC should be published next week
   ... also note that this call will be an hour earlier for people in
   Europe next time

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 16:03:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:43:50 UTC