W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2003

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

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 23:15:02 +0000 (GMT)
To: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Cc: John Lewis <lewi0371@mrs.umn.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0301042228460.4908-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Shelby Moore wrote:
> 10. As for Ian's cited mentions of semantics in HTML 4.01 spec, of
> course the specification attempts to specify semantics. But no where
> does it say that it _completely_ controls semantics.

That's the default behaviour.

If a spec says

   "The glorgle elements means flarble giggle."

...then <glorgle> means flarble giggle, unless another spec says

This is what I mentioned in my last post:

|> Okay I have searched the W3C and Google Web and I can find no where
|> does it say that semantics is entirely determined by specification,
|> as Ian claims.
| "The specifications are the only place that defines semantics" is not
| a normative statement, it is a statement of fact: You cannot prove it
| by finding a statement in a spec, only disprove it by finding contrary
| evidence.
| (In technical terms, it is a theory; as in physics this theory cannot
| be proven, only strengthened by evidence that supports it or disproven
| by evidence that contradicts it.)
 -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0070.html

> In fact, I know I haven't seen one complaint to my thread from
> @microsoft yet

People's affiliations really are irrelevant in the context of a
technology's technical merits, despite apparent common belief.

In any case, I thought you said you'd read Tantek's resume.

> 3. XBL can most certainly change the implementation of HTML tags to
> some thing which disagrees with specification

How? You have yet to explain _how_ it can. Please could you give us
some sample XBL which changes the meaning of an element?

...and you _still_ haven't replied to the numerous arguments I made in
my last post:


...that were unrelated to semantics but covered the various other
technical issues you brought up.

I intend to push XBL within the working group. I would much rather you
explained to me why I should not _before_ I spend significant amounts
of time preparing a submission.

Also, as I said in my last e-mail, it would be very useful to those of
us who are supporting XBL, HTCs, and related technologies if you could
summarise (in only a few dozen lines, not in multiple 1000 line epics)
your main objections to the technology. I would like to discuss your
other objections as well.

Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 4 January 2003 18:15:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:05 UTC