This document was created by the W3C's Web Application Formats (WAF) Working Group and contains issues/comments/questions/etc. regarding Mozilla's XML Binding Language 2.0 document. The comments reflect versions 1.42 and 1.43.
Each issue is included in its section. Some of the issues contain small snippets of context to help clarify the issue.
Date: 2006-05-16.
ISSUE-A The definition of compound document must be consistent with the CDF WG's definition.
ISSUE-B Why does the specification state that in addition to following error handling rules UAs may abort all processing? Once documents are out there that rely on error handling (they shouldn't of course) UAs that abort all processing may have to revert that just because other UAs don't.
ISSUE-C If this specification says nothing at all about the level of Selector support that is required, will that result in interoperablity issues (e.g. partial and different levels of selector support)? This appears to violate Selectors specification section 12.
ISSUE-D Need to clarify absent in the second paragraph e.g. does it mean ignore?
ISSUE-E To clarify the following sentence and CSS
code, replace the sentence and CSS code with something like
Elements in the XBL Namespace should have the display
property set to none by default..
XBL user agents should act as if they had the following rules in their UA style sheet:
@namespace xbl url(http://www.mozilla.org/xbl2);
xbl|* { display: none; }
ISSUE-F Need to clarify rendered in this context. Also, what does this imply regarding style sheets?
That is to say, XBL elements should not be rendered.
implementation ElementISSUE-G Does on first use in the description of
the implementation element imply that if I modify it, bind it to
some other element, that element won't have the modifications?
ISSUE-H Vendor specific attributes should be in a namespace.
xbl:inherits AttributeISSUE-I The definition of xbl:inherits should be expanded to include intrinsic properties of the bound element into account, such as language, base URI, etc.
handler ElementISSUE-J Why does the handler element
not have a src attribute to facilitate script re-use?
prefetch ElementISSUE-K This functionality of the prefetch
element does not seem essential to XBL. Perhaps it should be specified
in a separate (modular) specification.
ISSUE-L Since the XForms reference is non-normative, this section should be non-normative.
ISSUE-M the use of PIs is discouraged by some
communities (i.e. the W3C's TAG). Can this PI's functionality
be replaced by some other syntax - as the SVG WG did with the
import element of sXBL?
ISSUE-N Need to clarify if using -xbl-binding or addBinding() does not result in the rest of the binding document being applied if there is a match. For example,if addBinding() is called and an XBL document is fetched <binding element="'> on some of the other bindings don't automatically match anything in the document.
ISSUE-O the Note: in this section needs clarification in particular attach versus fetch versus import.
ISSUE-P to clarify the figure, add code that results in what the figure shows.
ISSUE-Q The following paragraph needs clarification
because a binding element may have at most one
template element and the text implies otherwise.
The bindings in the bound element's list of bindings are first checked to see if any have shadow content templates. If any do, then the most derived such template is the primary generating binding. Otherwise, there isn't one.
ISSUE-R The processing model for the inherited
described in this section is difficult to follow.
ISSUE-S It seems parts of this section are XML 1.0 specific by referring to Namespaces in XML 1.0. This might be a more general issue with what happens when binding an XML 1.0 binding document to an XML 1.1 bound document.
ISSUE-T It is unclear if it is good for 'text' or any value not mentioned here being processed as normal. May also want to have an "extension" at some point and not want older implementations to forward an attribute if they don't recognize it. Perhaps the spec should say something about types starting with 'xbl' MUST be ignored and not processed?
content ElementsISSUE-U The processing model for content elements in section 2.5 should be combined with the processing model in this section (i.e. consolidate the model in one location of the document).
:-xbl-bound-element Pseudo-ClassISSUE-V Should add a forward reference to section 5.10.
ISSUE-W If the CSS parser does not support these pseudo elements, does the XBL User Agent need to support them?
XBLImplementation InterfaceISSUE-X Need an example on how this interface is used. For example is this something the author has to create?
ISSUE-Y Need to add a Device Independence disclaimer/warning about this functionality.
ISSUE-Z Need to add a Device Independence disclaimer/warning about this functionality.
ISSUE-AA Need to add a Device Independence disclaimer/warning about this functionality.
ISSUE-AB Need to add a Device Independence disclaimer/warning about this functionality.