W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: Comments on proposed editor's draft of XBL2 from Forms WG

From: Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:55:09 -0700
Message-ID: <E254B0A7E0268949ABFE5EA97B7D0CF40BCE8575@USA7061MS01.na.xerox.net>
To: <public-webapps@w3.org>
Cc: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
>On Sep 22, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
>> We applaud the desire of the HTML5 WG to incorporate aspects of XBL
>> HTML5.  Even if it is reduced from XBL and XBL2, having such
>> in HTML5 will still help others using layered implementation
>> of which HTML5 is one part (viz. [Ubiquity XForms], [Web Backplane],
>> [XSLTForms]).
>For the record, the HTML WG is not involved in the publication of any
version of XBL and there are no plans for the HTML WG to do so at this
time. It remains a Web Apps WG deliverable, and no one has suggested
moving it over. The design of HTML5 does allow for separate
specifications to extend it, and we are happy to have such
specifications developed by other W3C Working Groups where appropriate,
and with sufficient coordination and cross-review.
>Also, while it is true that HTML5 is our primary charter deliverable,
our name is spelled "HTML WG", not "HTML5 WG".
>Maciej Stachowiak
>W3C HTML Working Group  Co-Chair


Thank you for the corrections and updates, and I apologize for the typo!
At one point I said "XForms" instead of "XBL" in my earlier message, so
you can rest assured I'm an equal-opportunity mis-typist!  (Also, I wish
to apologize to Art Barstow and the rest of the group for the duplicate
message; someone the first one I sent didn't arrive, and once I re-sent
it, both appeared in the archives.  Perhaps the list server is simply

I would like to ask, though, if your statement as WG Co-Chair that the
HTML WG is not involved in XBL and that nobody has suggested moving it
over means that we won't be seeing the "merge ... with the HTML spec"
that Ian Hixson, editor of the HTML5 document, indicates he's planning
in [1]?  Or perhaps is this an issue of current discussion in your WG?

I noticed some follow-on comments on webapps debating HTC and other
names for XBL in HTML5, and while the Forms WG has no formal comment in
that area, we did discuss in the Forms WG the advantages that several
XfForms+XHTML implenentations have taken of HTC and Mozilla XBL in the
internals of their implementations, and so speaking personally, I want
to re-iterate that I think that work on HTML5 in this area would be
greatly beneficial to all, no matter what the name is, as long as it
isn't predicated on the demise of the XBL2 Recommendation-track document
which is currently being used by XForms implementators and XForms users
at the authoring level.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Sep/0005.html

Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 16:55:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:11 UTC