- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 14:08:36 -0700
- To: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
Jon Ferraiolo wrote: > Here is what I am seeing: > > From the XBL2 spec: > ------------ > Bindings attached through CSS must only remain on the bound element as > long as the element continues to match the style rule. If at any time a > resolution of style on the element determines that a different binding > should be attached, the old binding (and all bindings that it explicitly > extends in its _explicit inheritance chain_ > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/#explicit1>) must be detached. > ------------ This only talks about bindings attached using CSS though. Not bindings attached using the element attribute or the .addBinding function. > In the case of a clone, if there is a <foo> element that gets cloned and > if there is a <binding element="foo"> or a style declaration for "foo" > which applies a binding, then dynamic reapplication of bindings would > cause the cloned foo element to have the given binding attached to it. > So, the clone would get its own binding, its own separately built shadow > tree, along with invocation of xblBindingAttached() and things like that. Yes, that is probably how I would interpret the spec now, although it's not very explicit. This is Option A in my original email. However just leaving it at that I think would be a severe limitation on what you could implement using XBL2 since you couldn't keep any private state while still working with .clone(). / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2007 21:11:36 UTC