- From: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 12:07:39 +0200
- To: "Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org>
------- Forwarded message ------- From: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> To: public-webapps@w3.org Cc: hyatt@apple.com Subject: XBL2 Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 03:23:33 +0200 Since XBL2 wasn't getting much traction, I've taken an axe to the spec and made a number of changes to the spec based on some discussions with some browser vendors: http://dev.w3.org/2006/xbl2/Overview.html The main changes are simplification: I've dropped namespace support, made it part of HTML rather than its own language, dropped <style> and <script> in favour of HTML equivalents, dropped all the <handler> syntactic sugar (and redirected event forwarding to internal object instead), dropped <preload>, dropped mentions of XForms and XML Events, and so on. I've updated all the examples to use the new syntax, so if you're curious about the differences, comparing the examples in the spec above to those in the TR version is probably a good way to get an idea of what I did. If this ends up being more successful than the previous work on this specification, I'll have to merge it with the HTML spec to more properly define how it works. Right now it leaves a lot of the detail a bit vague (e.g. integration with the event loop, the parser, authoring conformance definitions, etc). If this happens, I don't yet know how much this will lend itself to being extracted back out into a separate module (for publication by this working group), versus being just published as a core part of the HTML spec, but I will be happy to update the group on this matter as it becomes clearer. I don't think the draft above would be suitable for publication as a TR/ draft, because of the aforementioned rough edges. I mostly just wanted to provide this for discussion, to see whether people considered this a move in a good direction or a significant step backwards.
Received on Friday, 3 September 2010 10:08:21 UTC