W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

XBL2 CR and the Sept 2010 version of XBL [Was: Re: Comments on proposed editor's draft of XBL2 from Forms WG]

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 07:46:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4CADB313.6040904@nokia.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:41 GMT