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: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 02:15:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4747.>
To: www-style@w3.org

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> 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 forgot to address the sub-classing essense of your point.  XAML most
definitely provides the graceful fallback to base class functionality:


  <Button Click="Button_Click">Click Me!</Button>

In above example, imagine <Canvas> is a <select>, and MyCanvasCode is
MapSelect.  Disclaimer, I have not studied this syntax well yet.

Someone else replied directly to me below, so might as well address it.

dolphinling wrote:
> It seems to me that you're saying the spec should force authors to
> provide semantic information not necessarily needed for functionality.
> (E.g. forcing them to declare in markup that you're selecting a country.)
> Am I understanding you properly, and if so, why do you think that?

dolphinling, please read up on the goals and justifications for semantic
web at Tim Berner-Lee's (TBL's) website.

For example, if you change/augment what a select is semantically doing on
your page, then the web should be told about the semantics.  E.g. so
search engine can properly index your page, etc..  TBL elaborates and
there are rich (deep) justifications for enabling a rich semantic web. 
Google Base is going forth on semantic tagging.  MSFT is enabling the code
sub-classing via XAML as shown above.


Kind Regards,
Shelby Moore
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 07:15:43 UTC

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