W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2006

Re: XBL in CSS

From: Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:40:33 +0000
Message-ID: <bde87dd20608281430i7458b33bmfb8d6fa07005685d@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org




>So far it seems that there is not a clear consensus; the majority of
>implementors seem to favour putting the property and the pseudo-class in
>the main CSS namespace, and the other commenters were about evenly split.

Will CSS properties ever have actual namespaces as opposed to just
hyphenated "vendor" prefixes?  I don't look forward to syntax like
this:

 foo { -xbl-binding: url(foo.xbl); }
 bar { -svg-stroke: 2px; }
 baz { -xyz-something: value; }

When there already exists syntax like this:
 foo { -moz-appearance: something; }
 bar { -khtml-something: value; }

XBL is not a "vendor", it's a language.  The vendor syntax is useful
because it gives the validator something to ignore.  I don't see why
the same syntax could be used for two totally different things.  What
if a vendor creates his own XBL-related CSS property?  Would we see
something like this:

 foo { -moz-xbl-subbinding: url(foo.sxbl); }

I would say the prefix should be removed from "binding", and if a new
namespace syntax arises for CSS properties, it and SVG properties
should use that syntax.

-- 
Jon Barnett
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 16:27:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:46 GMT