Re: [XBL] Introduction

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> 
>   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.

Abbreviated.


> 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.

Changed to:

   ...or by declaring, in XBL, that elements matching a specific selector 
   are 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/?

I don't understand the intent of this change.


> Is there a difference between a property and a field?  If not, one 
> should be removed from the sentence.

There was, but there isn't any more. Removed.


> 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.

Unfortunately, ECMA262 doesn't have syntax for getters and setters, and 
there isn't yet something more up to date to refer to. I'll update the 
spec when I can with the new reference.


> 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.

I don't see why script-type="text/javascript;version=1.5" would be needed. 
As noted above, ECMA 262 doesn't have getters and setters, so we can't not 
use them.

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