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: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 00:58:01 +0000 (GMT)
To: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0301060031380.4908-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Shelby Moore wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But I'm even more suspicious of efforts that promote sending
>>>> generic XML over the net for general purpose documents.
>>> 
>>> If I markup all the dates in my document using a custom tag
>>> <mydates>, it doesn't cause any harm.
>>
>> This is a huge misconception of the XML groupies.
> 
> XML "groupies" are also member of W3C and I wonder how they would react to
> your characterization of them as "groupies".

Knowing some of them, I imagine they would react with a hearty laugh.


>> It _does_ cause harm.
> 
> Go tell it on the XML mountain.  This list is not the proper forum.

I have. I was only bringing it up here to correct the misinformation
you wrote.


>> It means that implementations that do not apply your style hints
>> will totally fail to convey the document in any reasonable way.
> 
> Similar to if CSS "display:none" removes content at presentation?

CSS is optional, so no, it is very different to this.


On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Shelby Moore wrote:
>
> [...]
> Blah, blah, blah...
> 
> ...Ian do you have any concept of production thru compromise and trying to
> actually reach production, rather going on and on with obstruction??

I am sorry you feel that logical debate about XBL's role in the W3C is
obstruction.


> My points have been made.

...and countered, in multiple posts that you never replied to.


For the record, here is a summary of my response to your original
post, taking into account all your comments so far:

1. XBL is not W3C redundant, because there is no other spec that can
   do what it can:

   * Bind event handlers and styles to an element from the style
     layer.

   * Bind event handlers and styles to an element without affecting
     the original DOM.

   * Allow dynamic changes to the DOM to be reflected by the binding
     dynamically.

   * Allow individual elements to have bindings changed dynamically.

   * Allow multiple bindings to be added to the same element
     simultaneously.

   * Allow the user to individually override bindings without
     completely overriding the author bindings.

   * Allow new functions to be defined in the scope of the bindings
     without _any_ pollution of the document namespace.

   * Bind stylesheets to subtrees of the document without affecting
     any other elements.

2. CSS is the right layer at which to introduce XBL, because XBL
   addresses exactly the same problem as CSS -- presentation and
   behaviour. XBL affects semantics in just the same was as CSS.

3. XBL doesn't actually depend on any other W3C technology, it is
   designed to be independent of the scripting, DOM, and styling
   languages used. However, it can integrate tightly with W3C
   technologies, making it highly suitable in a W3C context.

Cheers,
-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 5 January 2003 19:58:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:19 GMT