W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2002

Re: XBL is (mostly) W3C redundant, and CSS is wrong W3C layer for semantic behavior *markup*

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 23:32:49 -0500
To: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20021230233249.A21941@is02.fas.harvard.edu>

On Monday 2002-12-30 21:58 -0600, Shelby Moore wrote:
> At 09:49 PM 12/30/2002 -0500, L. David Baron wrote:
> >On Monday 2002-12-30 20:29 -0600, Shelby Moore wrote:
> >> >  Additional
> >> >    namespace collisions (with non-standardized functions, anyway, where
> >> >    we don't have a good reason) break existing web pages that use
> >> >    functions with those names.
> >> 
> >> Namespace issues have been addressed in XML and other standards coming such
> >> as XEvents.
> >
> >I'm not talking about XML namespaces.  I'm talking about the namespace
> >of functions in the scripting language used.  Your response doesn't
> >answer the point I made.
> 
> You did not read carefully my previous response.  I wrote succinctly
> "XEvents" which eliminates the use of global script namespace:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xhtml-events-20010607/Overview.html#section-registering

I don't see anything in this section about the ability to write script
functions that don't pollute the global namespace.

> Are you familiar with the Javascript OO syntax as in following example?

Yes.

> The only global namespace usage is the class name MyObject.

Which is unnecessary pollution of the global namespace.

> But as I said
> that is not the preferred or optimal solution.  As I said, this is no worse
> than what you can do with XML.  It is a limitation of the global name space
> of scripting.  It is not inherent in XSLT.  It is inherent problem of
> scripting, because all instances of scripting sit at same global scope.

Can you explain how something that is easily solved by XBL is an
inherent problem with all of scripting?

> I mentioned "XEvents" as the way to compartmentalize event handlers without
> using global script namespace.  You should study the XEvents specification.
>  XEvents is one orthogonal events layer solution to the point you raise.

I don't see what this has to do with not polluting the global namespace,
if one wants to make use of functions, which are necessary to implement
complex behavior.

> Your argument that we MUST non-orthogonally merge events layer and semantic
> binding layer in order to avoid global name space collisions in scripting
> is like saying we should sew our best matched pants and shirt together.

Nobody's forcing you to use XBL.

> Have you taken any object oriented design classes at Harvard yet??

I'm tired of your repeated condescending comments, such as this, your
comment in [1] "thanking" me for a "civil debate", and your comment in
[2] about the knowledge of the people who work on Mozilla.  I will not
be replying further to your posts.  Do not consider my silence
indicative of agreement with any of your arguments.

-David

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Dec/0195.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Dec/0208.html

-- 
L. David Baron                                <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
Received on Monday, 30 December 2002 23:32:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:18 GMT