RE: [becss] "Behavioral Extensions to CSS" no longer an appropriate name

Daniel Glazman [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com] wrote:
>For one good reason at least : it's easy to name '::bound-element'
>from a 'binding' property with a clear semantic relationshiop.
>You can't do that with 'behavior'.

Noted, and agreed.  There's just no semantic relationship between the property 'binding', ::bound-element, and the title of the specification.

>For one second good reason : it's conflicting with MSFT's property
>and it's not specified the same way !

How so?  In either case it is a URI, is it not, that points to a "behavior" (note quotes and lower case)?

-Chris