Re: XBL2 underspecified

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
> 
> mea culpa -- i didn't mean the XBL specification itself, i was referring 
> to the XBL 2.0 Primer, but apparently i can't speak, minute, listen to 
> my screen reader, listen to the telecon and chew gum simultaneously -- 
> next time, i'll forgo the gum...

Hehe.

I'm curious what you mean by the primer being "underspecified" -- surely 
it's not specified at all? I mean, it's just a primer, a tutorial, it's 
not a specification or anything.

I agree it's not complete yet, but that doesn't seem to affect the XBL 
technology itself from a technical perspective. Few W3C specs ever have 
any official primer written for them.

I guess I'm just confused as to what the context of the discussion was in 
the minutes I cited.


> i hope this clarifies my own mis-minuted comments -- i will re-review 
> the XBL2 draft itself with an ear towards identifying any possible holes 
> in the draft

Great, thanks!


> which -- in my opinion, at least -- is quite well specified, save for 
> those isolated spots where the draft acknowledges that further and/or 
> more suitable text is needed and will be added when it becomes 
> available, such as the disclaimer in section 8.2.2. -- the only minor 
> suggestion i have is that it would be helpful to indicate if the draft 
> is waiting for a description/definition from another forum/working 
> group, or whether the details are being worked on within the 
> public-appsformat forum...

It's waiting on me, mostly. The description of the security model is one 
of the things I'm writing as part of the HTML5 effort.

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

Received on Thursday, 4 October 2007 19:15:49 UTC