Re: Decouple XBL2 From CSS

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Also, many standards allow themselves to be used in other places, and I 
> see no problem at all in having the binding mechanism be distinct from 
> the functionality provided by the bindings.

Just to be clear; whether or not XBL uses XPath internally or Selectors 
internally has no effect on what other languages it can be used with.

> This is the results of your research, yes? But it's all irrelevant, Ian. 
> There is a desire for more than one selection language, and there is no 
> reason not to provide it.

Providing multiple languages would double the load on implementors, 
implementations, testers, documentors, and me, and wouldn't provide a 
significant improvement in available features to the authors.

That's a reason not to provide it.

> Ah, your research again. But "real authors" who are familiar with XBL at 
> all, are actually familiar with XBL 1. So I suggest that you don't add 
> any new features, since no-one will be familiar with them. (Except the 
> vocal minority...)

XBL2 is aimed at HTML+CSS authors, not XBL1 authors.

> > If you wish to raise a formal objection, I will go out of my way to 
> > make sure the director is aware of your position when we move to CR.
> No worries...there is a mechanism for raising issues, so they will all 
> be taken into account anyway.

The mechanism is, you say you raise a formal objection, and the WG/editor 
(i.e. in this case, me) includes it in the disposition of comments to the 
director. In practice, it is very easy to bury such objections -- if you 
don't believe me, just have a look at the SVGWG's request that SVG Tiny 
1.2 move to CR.

I am just assuring you that I will not in any way bury this issue.

> > I was asked, by the Web Application Formats working group, to bring 
> > the specification that I edited for Mozilla to the W3C, on the 
> > understanding that no major changes would be involved. I am happy to 
> > do that, and I'm happy to fix any real technical problems that are 
> > found in the spec.
> You may not have got good advice, though...if you don't want your 
> document to be changed, then you shouldn't bring it to a standards 
> organisation that is based on discussion and listening to a broad range 
> of inputs.

I don't think you understand. *I didn't bring the document to the W3C*. 
The W3C came to me and _asked_ me to publish it through the W3C. Twice! 
The first time, it took 18 months, then the process broke down (at the 
time I was representing Opera directly, and the Mozilla and WebKit teams 
by proxy). Then the W3C came again (a different WG) and asked me to come 
to the W3C to publish the spec. This second time I was assured that there 
would be no major changes (this time I am representing Google's Firefox 
development team directly, and the Mozilla and WebKit teams by proxy).

XBL2 is based on discussion and listening to a broad range of inputs. It's 
one of the most openly discussed specs that is currently being driven by 
the W3C -- all discussion since late last year has been on public lists, 
both before and after being in the W3C; the editor's draft is in public, 
the text is Creative-Commons-licensed, multiple vendors have been 
contacted and their input taken into account. Just because your input is a 
minority opinion and is being declined, does not mean that your input is 
not being listened to.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Thursday, 3 August 2006 23:15:39 UTC