- From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:53:50 -0800
- To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 12/14/2010 01:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > Dear all, > > Looking at the use cases and the problems the current XBL2 spec is > trying address, I think it might be a good idea to rename it into > something that is less legacy-bound? Hixie already cleverly disguised > the "X" as [X]engamous in the latest draft, and if this spec is to > become part of HTML Is it? That was just a proposal, but I prefer the spec before the latest editions. -Olli , it probably should lose an 'L'. As for 'B', > describing what XBL2 aims to do as 'bindings' ain't super-accurate. > > The way I look at it, the problems we're trying to solve are: > > a) templating -- for astoundingly fast creation of DOM chunks using > declarative syntax; > b) shadow DOM -- for maximum-pleasure encapsulation and leak-free > component abstraction of DOM chunks; > c) binding -- for joy-filled extension and decoration DOM elements. > > Describing all these as just "Binding" just feels wrong. "Web > Components" perhaps or something along these lines? > > Who's with me? :) > > :DG< > >
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 23:54:32 UTC