W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2007

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

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:13:31 -0700
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
CC: "Paul Nelson (ATC)" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0B0F5B61B85C2847852ED3B251F89F6FF257659E1C@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>

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)?

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 21:15:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:31 UTC