- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:06:38 -0400
- To: ext Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "hyatt@apple.com" <hyatt@apple.com>
Do we have a sense yet regarding who supports XBL2 as in the 2007 Candidate version [CR] versus who supports the version Hixie recently published in [Draft]? Feedback from all (potential) implementers would be especially useful. Thinking aloud here, perhaps [Draft] could be positioned more like XBL1++ e.g. the XBL Note [Note] + bug fixes? (BTW, wow, didn't realize it's been almost 10 years since that Note was published.) -Art Barstow [CR] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-xbl-20070316/ [Draft] http://dev.w3.org/2006/xbl2/Overview.html [Note] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-xbl-20010223/ On 9/9/10 3:19 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Doug Schepers wrote: >> Arthur Barstow wrote (on 9/8/10 1:55 PM): >>> On 9/4/10 6:36 AM, ext Doug Schepers wrote: >>>> To that end, could you provide a link to the requirements document, or >>>> if there isn't one, could you start one? >>> FYI: when the Web Application Formats WG transitioned XBL2 from Last >>> Call WD to CR (March 2007), the transition request included the >>> following re requirements: >>> >>> [[ >>> 5. Evidence that the document satisfies group requirements: >>> >>> The spec satisfies more requirements than those defined in the >>> group's 10 February 2006 XBL Use Cases and Requirements document: >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2006Feb/att-0000/XBL-UCs-and-Reqs-2006-02-10-DRAFT.html >>> >>> ]] >> Thanks for the pointer. But it seems that the requirements have >> changed, according to Hixie, so I'd like to understand better the >> motivation for the changes he made. > I didn't examine the above list in depth, but apologies if I made it sound > like the requirements had changed; they haven't. What changed is the > context in which the spec is viewed -- one in which HTML has seen a > resurgence as the recognised core platform, in which our understanding of > latency and synchronicity implications in API designs is far improved, and > in which we (or at least I) have a far more appreciation of the importance > of incremental design in specifications, to lower the initial cost of > implementations without closing doors on the features the language can > support over the long term relative to the full vision of the spec. > > >> Some record of the implementer feedback he's received would probably >> suffice. > People pointed out the above (in particular the possibilities that would > be afforded by a closer integration with with HTML and XHTML, rather than > having a separate vocabulary, and the benefits of the incremental > approach). Hyatt and I then discussed how to apply these lessons to the > XBL2 spec for an initial proposal, which is what I then edited. > > HTH,
Received on Friday, 17 September 2010 13:07:01 UTC