W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2005

Re: Why Binding Scripting in Style Layer Conflates Semantics

From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:59:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4603.>
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

You've raised a valid point, which hopefully others can debate on list.

Before I go into it, do note this line of discussion is orthogonal to the
title of this thread.  It is a natural direction, but just make it clear
the outcome of this line of discussion doesn't affect the logic on the
title of the thread.

My 2 cents is that the coder insures that the tag implementation is
available, by making the code auto-downloadable as necessary.  The .Net
has an architecture for this.  It is somewhat analgous to specifying a
downloadable font, if the font isn't available, the display may degrade
(e.g. non-ascii glyphs).

You are basically dwelving into the issue of normative vs. distributed
semantics.  Tim Berners-Lee seems to point out they are both necessary. 
Go back to my post that links to his writings.

Even a normative standard doesn't guarantee that UA will understand a tag.
 The UA must be conforming.  Standards are always progressing.

This is all a race towards semantic richness.  We get there fastest by
allowing distributed as well as normative semantics.

This is truely my last point.  To all readers, please do me a favor and
don't reply to me.  I keep unsubscribing and then someone emails me a
juicy point :)

I do trust what I said is enough to start the ball rolling.

> Being almost drown in this semanticly sparkling beverage I would
> like though to ask one queston:
> (Indeed, XAML is simply a format to describe an object graph
> thus as per its design XAML has no semantic meaning in human sense)
> What will happen if UA will receive document with
> unknown (to UA) classes/elements?
> What I shall do if I will get <mapselect> which is
> unknown to my engine, as an example?
> What is the fallback schema assumed?
> I can understand when XAML is used
> as a compileable resource definition in Windows applications
> when all classes are known and belong to the same assembly,
> but seriosly looking on it as a HTML/CSS alternative... Well...
> And that physiological style of argumentation... I suppose
> it shall tell urbi et orbi about your level of XAML excitement or what?
> Andrew Fedoniouk.
> http://terrainformatica.com


Kind Regards,
Shelby Moore
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 05:00:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:21 UTC