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

Re: Why sXBL first and then XBL 2.0?

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:16:49 +0200
Message-ID: <4140D651.2090600@expway.fr>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Jon Ferraiolo wrote:
>>* As a veteran of many W3C activities, I agree wholeheartedly that it is 
>>indeed usually better to define a minimal version that addresses a 
>>well-known set of needs first, and then learn from that, versus taking 
>>guesses about how to solve all potential problems at once.
> 
> You mean you do not think that it should be a requirement for whatever
> comes after sXBL that it is fully "backwards-compatible" with sXBL?

Whoa, you're taking a huge leap full of unfounded assumptions here. What 
Jon's saying is that it is much smarter to start with something simple 
(while not designing it to be hard to evolve) and see how well it fares 
and where the more complex and elaborate changes need to be done. Of 
course, it makes it harder to get future versions right as you may be 
restricting what they can do without knowing it. That being said, I 
think that having Mozilla-XBL experts on the TF as well as people that 
have designed, used, and implemented RCC and related solutions certainly 
gives some confidence as to how open to future evolutions the tech is.

Besides, when it comes to not designing SVG Full before SVG Tiny 
/again/, I can only wholeheartedly agree :)

-- 
Robin Berjon
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 22:17:14 UTC

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