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

Re: Why sXBL first and then XBL 2.0?

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 06:10:32 +0100
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <chbpe5$6sf$1@sea.gmane.org>


"Anne van Kesteren" <fora@annevankesteren.nl> wrote in message 
news:41386DE5.2050606@annevankesteren.nl...
>>> Anything that will be defined here as sXBL will certainly also be in the 
>>> more general XBL 2.0?
>>
>> Yes - its to be a strict superset.
>
> If it will be a strict superset, don't the other groups have to agree on 
> what you have created now?

What other groups?  If it's W3 WG's or Task Forces then I'm sure they're 
involved - why else would it take 5 months to rename a few RCC elements?

> Starting large and ending small (the SVG profile) will probably give 
> better results.

but be cursed with sXBL not being in SVG 1.2 unless that is horrendously 
delayed even more to fit in with a complete XBL specification.

I also don't actually believe it would give better results, the more 
ambitious W3 reccomendations have generally been the worst, early 
implementation experience of a part is probably highly valuable.

Jim. 
Received on Saturday, 4 September 2004 07:04:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:55 UTC