W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 1999

Re: New Working Draft : BECSS

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 03:14:01 +0200
Message-ID: <380E68D8.4591A1C3@w3.org>
To: Steffen Goeldner <sgoeldner@eurodata.de>
CC: www-style@w3.org


Steffen Goeldner wrote:
> 
> We would like to ask if you are aware of ECMA-290?
> 
>  ECMAScript Components Specification (June 1999)
> 
>  http://www.ecma.ch/stand/ECMA-290.htm

I for one was not; thanks for the reference. So in summary, it is a way
of adding modularity (in the snxse of Modula-2 modules, Java classes,
Ada packages) to ECMAScript, using definition files written in XML? This
looks very useful. However, it does not seem to be addressing the same
problem that BECSS is addressing. 

> We think, it's a very similar approach to BECSS.

I searched for the terms "CSS" or "selector" in the ECMA-290 document
and did not find them. The use of CSS selector mechanism is a central
part of BECSS. It is how script may be bound onto particular elements of
a document, and in a different presentation, different scripts are bound
onto different elements of the same document instance without editing
the document.

I did not see similar functionality in ECMA-290. Similarly, I don't see
anything in BECSS which describes interface, header, or public
definition functionality for ECMAScript. 

> Generally, we would prefer an open standard  from
> W3C with public reviews, but as there already exists
> a standard, we would appreciate that W3C and ECMA
> deal with this topic in the same manner.

I certainly agree with those statements and the sentiment behind them.
However, I do not see a conflict here.

--
Chris
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 1999 21:14:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:00 GMT