- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 07:46:27 -0400
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, Tab Atkins <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Leigh Klotz <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Hi All, In case you haven't followed this thread (started at [HEAD]), my extremely short summary is: 1. Hixie, based on discussions with David Hyatt, Tab Atkins and perhaps some others, created a new Editor's Draft (ED) of XBL2 [XBL-Sep-2010] that defines the XBL language as part of HTML (rather than defining its own namespace) and removes a number of XBL2 features "to lower the initial implementation cost, so that we can get some traction, and then we can add the features back in afterwards to get it back to where we were before" (Hixie). (See [DIFFS] for a summary of the changes.) 2. The Forms community would like to see XBL2 - as defined in the 2007 CR [XBL2-CR] - continued, since Leigh noted XBL2 is "being used by XForms implementators and XForms users at the authoring level". (See [LEIGH] for details.) Ideally, the W3C would only progress one Binding Language on the Recommendation track. However, given the implementations by the Forms community and some Browser vendors not implementing the XBL2 CR because of the reasons Hixie mentioned, a single spec may not be able to satisfy all interests. As such, perhaps a way forward is to: a. Keep the XBL2 CR on the REC track and put the burden of satisfying the CR exit criteria (e.g. test suite creation) on those that support it; and b. Assuming there is "reasonable" interest in implementing the Sep 2010 ED of XBL, push it as a new spec on the REC track (i.e. something with a shortname other than "xbl"). [At the risk of ratholing on names, "Web XBL" is an option as is "Web BL" since (as Leigh pointed out), there is no XML in [XBL-Sep-2010].] Would the [XBL2-CR] proponents please provide their level of interest in moving that spec forward? In particular, are you willing to create the test suite necessary to exit CR? Would the [XBL-Sep-2010] proponents indicate their level of interest in moving that ED forward, in particular, information about implementation plans? Feedback, as always, is welcome. -Art Barstow [HEAD] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/0675.html [XBL-Sep-2010] http://dev.w3.org/2006/xbl2/ [XBL2-CR] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-xbl-20070316/ [LEIGH] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JulSep/1008.html [DIFFS] http://dev.w3.org/2006/xbl2/Overview.html#editors-note
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 11:47:16 UTC