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

Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:25:27 +1300
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "ext Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@Xerox.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Message-ID: <20110309212527.GB20932@wok.mcc.id.au>
Arthur Barstow:
> * Should the WG pursue Dimitri Glazkov's Component Model proposal
> [Component]? If yes, who is willing to commit to work on that spec?

I promised Dmitri some use cases from the SVG WG’s perspective, but
haven’t managed to get to working on these yet.  Whatever solution we
have in the end – and I personally am not really fussed about whether it
is XBL2 as it was, or is now, or something new based on Dmitri’s
requirements document – I would like it to be able to work without an
HTML document present.  I want to be able to write a document like

  <svg …>
    <star cx="100" cy="100" points="5"/>
  </svg>

or

  <svg …>
    <my:star xmlns:star="…" cx="100" cy="100" points="5"/>
  </svg>

or

  <svg …>
    <g class="star" cx="100" cy="100" points="5"/>
  </svg>

or

  <svg …>
    <g binding="star" cx="100" cy="100" points="5"/>
  </svg>

(choosing <g> here because it’s kind of similar to a <div>), one of
those.  Sorry for not having more concrete comments yet.

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 21:26:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:43 GMT