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

Re: Why sXBL first and then XBL 2.0?

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 09:45:47 +0200
Message-ID: <1435907829.20040904094547@w3.org>
To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

On Saturday, September 4, 2004, 7:10:32 AM, Jim wrote:



JL> "Anne van Kesteren" <fora@annevankesteren.nl> wrote in message 
JL> 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?

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

Correct.

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

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

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

I agree there also.




-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Saturday, 4 September 2004 07:45:47 UTC

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