On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:33:45 -0700, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote: > IMO the binding property is simple and well-specified. I don't really > see a need for additional complexity in the CSS syntax. Note that he's proposing an additional feature, as I understand it. I suppose that doing @binding url() will load the binding document and than for each binding associate it with the element given in element="" attribute. > dave > > On Aug 16, 2006, at 8:26 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > >> >> fantasai wrote: >>> I don't mind putting these bindings in a text/css file, but I would >>> like to see them explicitly separated out from the rest of the CSS >>> rules, perhaps in an @rule that is always placed before any regular >>> CSS rules. >>> @import "foo"; >>> @bindings { >>> input.special { binding: url("mybinding"); } >>> } >> >> I somewhat agree with Ian that this adds too much complexity, but it >> has given me an idea. >> >> It would be useful to be able to import bindings from CSS, much like >> the <?xbl?> PI does. The benefit of this would be that, unlike the PI, >> it could be used in HTML. Presently, the only way to import a binding >> into HTML is to call document.loadBindingDocument(...); in a script. >> >> What about using this? >> >> @binding url(/binding/example.xbl); >> @binding "/binding/example.xbl" >> >> Or perhaps just extending @import to support importing bindings. >> >> --Lachlan Hunt >> http://lachy.id.au/ >> > -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>Received on Thursday, 17 August 2006 04:39:22 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2007 18:22:31 GMT