Re: XBL (Was: The interpretation of script)

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is really XBL not a concern of this task force ?
>
> I think that now that Decentralized Extensibility is dead, XBL is an
> important way of light (I mean the version where X meant XML, not the
> strange last version)
>
> Mohamed
>

I'd definitely agree with this. Indeed, this was brought up at the HCG last
Friday. XBL provides a mechanism for extensibility within HTML, but it also
provides a potential mechanism for introducing behaviors for other XML
schemas -- certainly for XHTML+XForms, but to a certain extent valid for any
document (rather than process specific XML schema)  such as MusicML,
VoiceML, DocBook, DITA, CML, etc. It would, however, require a more
extensive involvement in the process by ALL stakeholders, not just the HTML
working group, for it to be of real value, and to make sure that we don't
end up with a fork. One solution that was suggested there was to look at an
XBL 3.0 that would be a broader framework for creating behavioral languages,
with one particular profile of that broader specification being the HTML
centric XBL that Hixie proposed; something which, while it will take some
work to do, may ultimately prove to be of benefit to anyone looking at
building behavioral capabilities into XML or HTML devices (I'm thinking in
particular the mobile market, which may be ripe for some kind of a
declarative behavioral language). I personally think this may be the most
achievable solution, and especially now that all browsers support xhtml+xml
as a formal type, one that I think the web overall is ready for.

Kurt Cagle
Invited Expert, Forms Working Group, W3C
kurt.cagle@gmail.com
443-837-8725