W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: XBL2 is dead.

From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:07:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CADh5Ky0vBkERapCQXTWjmf0nujPF-zaJ4LdkS2cfHqjngrAFHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:30:24 +0200, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Further, instead of packaging Web Components into one omnibus
>> offering, we will likely end up with several free-standing specs or
>> spec addendums:
>>
>> 1) Shadow DOM, the largest bag of with XBL2's donated organs --
>> probably its own spec;
>> 2) Constructible and extensible DOM objects  which should probably
>> just be part of DOM Core and HTML;
>> 3) Declarative syntax for gluing the first 2 parts together -- HTML
>> spec seems like a good fit; and
>> 4) Confinement primitives, which is platformization of the lessons
>> learned from Caja (http://code.google.com/p/google-caja/), integrated
>> with element registration.
>
> It's still not very clear to me what any of this means and how it will fit
> together. Having either a specification or examples to shoot at would be
> helpful. Once it is more clear what each of these parts is going to look
> like, it might be easier for me to comment on how you suggest we split them.

Yessir! Working on it! :)

>
>
>> Why split it like this? Several reasons:
>>
>> a) they are independently moving parts. For example, just shadow DOM,
>> all by itself, is already a useful tool in the hands of Web
>> developers. It's our job as spec developers to ensure that these bits
>> comprise a coherent whole, but from implementation perspective, they
>> don't need to block one another.
>
> How do you construct a shadow DOM though declaratively without a component?

For consistency's sake, it seems like a pretty cool thing to do.
However, the use cases we've been working with haven't shown a need
for this. At this point, I've made peace with only being able to
construct shadow DOM imperatively without the components.

>
>
>> b) each belongs in the right place. For example, making DOM objects
>> extensible is a concern inside of the DOM Core spec. Declarative
>> syntax really needs to live in HTML. Also...
>>
>> c) some parts are too small to be their own spec.
>> Constructible/extensible DOM objects bit does not even have an API
>> surface.
>>
>> d) And finally, every bit has potential of solving problems that are
>> more general than just about components. We shouldn't require making a
>> component if all developer wants is some shadow DOM. Similarly, lack
>> of needing a component shouldn't preclude the use of confinement
>> primitives.
>>
>> Just to recap: XBL2 is dead, exploding into a pretty rainbow. I am a
>> pop tart cat in front of the rainbow.
>
> :-)

I am glad you liked it :)

:DG<
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 16:07:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT