- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:09:49 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Antoine Quint <aq@fuchsia-design.com>
- Cc: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>, doug.schepers@vectoreal.com, public-appformats@w3.org
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Antoine Quint wrote: > > That's right. However, the selector is CSS3 Selectors only, if I follow > the reference in the current XBL2 draft. I think it would be great if > XPath selectors were also accepted for bindings, if only because XPath > is well understood by browsers out there today (well, at least WebKit, > Gecko-based browsers, Opera and Internet Explorer) and is a core XML > technology which XBL is poised to become too. Selectors are well understood by browsers, and are a core Web technology too... why would XPath be a better solution than Selectors here? The reason behind using Selectors is that that's what most authors use. Selectors is far more mature than XPath; why would a relatively untested technology like XPath be preferred over a well-known and widely used one like Selectors? (Using both isn't an option because it would require twice as much work for everyone involved with little or no practical benefit to authors.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 3 August 2006 20:09:58 UTC