- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:53:04 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Dec 15, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > >>> At least in Gecko's case, we still use XBL1 in this way, and those design >>> goals would apply to XBL2 from our point of view. It sounds like you have >>> entirely different design goals, right? >> >> Sounds like it. > > OK, so given contradictory design goals, where do we go from here? Are they really contradictory? It sounds like Tab doesn't care about the use case where you want hundreds or thousands of instances without undue memory use, since he's looking to replace technologies that already don't support this. But it doesn't seem like these use cases are fundamentally incompatible. Personally, I think it would be a huge win if XBL2-based components could be more scalable than ones written in pure JavaScript using vanilla DOM calls. That way, XBL2 could enable new kinds of applications and reduce memory use of existing applications, rather than just providing convenience and bridging, as Tab seems to envision. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 06:53:47 UTC