W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:19:01 +0000 (UTC)
To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
cc: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps@w3.org, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1110111818180.27449@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Splitting this up into two different things is great.
> 
> The specific meaning of "splitting up" is where the things get
> interesting. As far as I understand Hixie's idea, the component (which
> exposes API) and the binding (which supplies shadow tree) aren't
> coupled, which means they can share no internal state.

As far as I'm concerned, the term "component" and the term "binding" mean 
the same thing.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 18:22:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:48 GMT