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

Re: Why sXBL first and then XBL 2.0?

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:24:38 +0200
To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <415a289a.606402470@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Robin Berjon 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.

I am rather asking for clarification so I don't have to assume anything.
If a general purpose XBL language ought to be compatible to sXBL, it is
constrained in a number of ways, changing core concepts of the language
would be difficult or not feasible; that constrains how one could learn
from the sXBL approach and an evaluation for fitness of such a require-
ment would mean to take guesses how to solve potential problems. As Jon
states that it is usually better not to do that, I see the above a fair
interpretation but other interpretations are possible too, which is why
I ask. I would be surprised by his statement along with statements that
a general purpose XBL language MUST by fully compatible to sXBL, rather
than, for example, that compatibility would be nice - but not essential.
Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 23:25:20 UTC

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