- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:31:29 +1000
- To: public-appformats@w3.org
Hi. This is a last call comment on the XBL 2 Editor’s Draft (dated 27 October 2006). 1 Introduction ============== Bindings can be attached to elements using either cascading style sheets, the document object model, or by declaring, in XBL, that a particular element in a particular namespace is implemented by a particular binding. The abbreviations “DOM” and “CSS” were used two sentences ago. If they must be spelled out, I think it should be done upon their first occurrence. The number of “particular”s in the sentence grates a little. How about: …or by declaring, in XBL, that an element with a specified name is implemented by a particular binding. Bindings can contain event handlers that watch for events on the bound element, an implementation of new methods, properties and fields that become accessible from the bound element, shadow content that is inserted underneath the bound element, and associated resources such as scoped style sheets and precached images, sounds, or videos. Maybe s/from the bound element/from the bound element’s DOM object/? Is there a difference between a property and a field? If not, one should be removed from the sentence. Some strange (get/set) syntax is used in the example in this section. According to section 2.1, the default scripting language is ECMAScript 3rd Edition. The example should be changed so that it does not have incorrect syntax. Ah I see later on in section 2.3 it is mentioned these come from JavaScript 1.5. Examples that use this syntax should have script-type="text/javascript;version=1.5" or something. Better would be just to stick to ECMAScript. Thanks, Cameron -- Cameron McCormack, http://mcc.id.au/ xmpp:heycam@jabber.org ▪ ICQ 26955922 ▪ MSN cam@mcc.id.au
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 10:27:03 UTC