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

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

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:21:05 +0200
Message-ID: <472051F1.1070508@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Paul Nelson (ATC)" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Chris Wilson wrote:

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

Ah ? Nothing comparable with a transformation language named "eXtensible
Style Language" I hope ?-)

The spec is about a way to bind a given element to a given behavior or
a set of given behaviors. So the title makes perfect sense to me even
with a 'binding' property.

Perhaps the property should not be 'binding' but 'bind'. It represents
an action, not a style status. The binding action itself can fail if the
behavior is unparsable or its constructor triggers an error.
Remember, we discussed that point many times during our BECSS conf
calls long ago, merging actions and styles into the same instance based
on CSS syntax and grammar.

BTW, this raises an interesting question. Suppose we have

   binding: url(a) url(b);

and resource a is unparsable. What's the computed value of 'binding' ?

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

The mime type of HTC components is apparently text/x-component. The
resource itself can be XML-based (but with no doctype and even no root
document) or a binary, is that correct ?
That means that if the new property is named 'behavior', non-Microsoft
browsers would have to detect and drop your user-defined MIME type
*when they are served correctly*. And when they're not
served correctly...
Furthermore, your 'behavior' seems to have no 'none' value. But I
admit your online documentation about HTCs remains extremely hard to
browse (nothing new here eh ?) and I may have missed it.

I have this gut feeling a standard has to be implemented the other way
around, just like in Gecko we do -moz-* stuff until the implementation
meets the standard and then we remove the -moz-. Or we implement a new
property. Unfortunately, you did not name your property -ms-behavior.

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 08:21:26 UTC

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