W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2004

Re: sXBL feedback and proposals

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:31:39 +0100
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <cktvo3$s7j$1@sea.gmane.org>


"Nigel McFarlane" <nrm@kingtide.com.au> wrote in message 
news:4172735B.7040603@kingtide.com.au...
> Suppose an XHTML+SVG document exploits XBL and contains an <iframe>.
> The parent document has five references to an XBL external resource
> R and the <iframe> content has two references to R. The parent
> document will retrieve one instance of R and re-use it four times.
> The <iframe> document will retrieve one instance of R and re-use
> it once."

I don't think it's a good idea to mention any XHTML in the sXBL draft, 
otherwise it's clear (perhaps change iframe to "image".

> "An XBL binding cannot change the nature of a bound element, it can
> only change the element's implementation. A binding that is poorly
> conceived could pervert the intent of an XML element, but that is
> merely a use-case showing ignorance of the spirit of XML."

What's "the spirit of XML" ?

I agree that the original paragraph is very strange, but I don't think this 
has particularly improved it - what is it trying to say?  (see my other 
comments on this one)

Cheers,

Jim. 
Received on Sunday, 17 October 2004 14:31:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:55 UTC