Re: XBL2

For what it's worth, it's a requirement for us to be able to use
namespaces of some sorts since we're planning on implementing XUL
using XBL2. There are however multiple ways we can do this and I'll
need to look into which approach XUL developers prefer.

I'm also not sure that we can do without <style> and <script>, but we
can always add those as an extension to our implementation.

In general I would have appreciated at least being pinged about our
requirements before these changes had been made. In the current state
its unlikely that we'll be following the specification without
modifications.

/ Jonas

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
>

Received on Friday, 3 September 2010 17:25:00 UTC