- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 20:33:08 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Be careful with the big words. It can't be that inferior if it satisfies use cases that XBL2 can't. :DG< On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Sat, 3 Sep 2011, Dominic Cooney wrote: >> > >> > I think the XBL approach is far superior here -- have authors use >> > existing elements, and use XBL to augment them. For example, if you >> > want the user to select a country from a map, you can use a <select> >> > with a list of countries in <option> elements in the markup, but then >> > use CSS/XBL to bind that <select> to a "component" that instead makes >> > the <select> look like a map, with all the interactivity that implies. >> >> That sounds appealing, but it looks really hard to implement from where >> we right now. > > I don't think "it's hard" is a good reason to adopt an inferior solution, > especially given that this is something that will dramatically impact the > Web for decades to come. > > XBL already has multiple implementations in various forms. I certainly > agree that we should adjust XBL2 to take into account lessons we have > learnt over the past five years, such as dropping namespaces and merging > it into HTML instead of forcing an XML language on authors, but taking a > significantly less capable solution simply because XBL is difficult seems > like a very poor trade-off. > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' > >
Received on Sunday, 4 September 2011 03:33:42 UTC