Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <> wrote:
> This email is written as the position of several Chrome engineers
> working in this problem area at Google, though not Google's official
> position.
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Arthur Barstow <> wrote:
>> * What is the latest implementation status of the XBL2 CR [XBL2-CR] and
>> Hixie's September 2010 version [XBL-ED] (previously referred to as
>> "XBL2-cutdown")?
> Chrome does not implement either form of XBL2.
>> * Which members of WebApps want to continue with the XML-based version of
>> XBL2 as codified in the XBL2 CR? If you are groupin this , what firm
>> commitments can you make to push the spec along the REC track? Would you
>> object to the Forms WG taking over this spec?
> We object to continuing with XBL2.  The original XBL2 was flawed, and
> the cutdown version of XBL2 is incomplete and still too complex.  I'm
> not sure if we would object, per se, to the Forms WG taking over XBL2,
> but we would consider it wasted effort that would not result in us
> implementing it in Chrome/Webkit.

To be fair, most of the event retargeting, CSS property inheritance
and the plumbing for custom pseudo element capability (XBL2's pseudo
attribute) is now implemented in WebKit. So there is _some_ overlap in
the mechanical (i.e. non-user-facing) parts of the spec.

I view [XBL2-ED] spec as an excellent starting point for the Web
Components spec, but we should go much further toward untangling
orthogonal concerns and simplifying, as well as relying more on
existing (and well-understood) concepts in the Web platform.

>> * Which members of WebApps want to continue with the non-XML version as
>> Hixie created last September? If you are in this group, what firm
>> commitments can you make to push this version along the REC track
>> (especially implementation)?
> We do not wish to work on either version of XBL2.
>> * Should the WG pursue Dimitri Glazkov's Component Model proposal
>> [Component]? If yes, who is willing to commit to work on that spec?
> We believe that the Component Model proposal should be pursued.
> Dimitri Glazkov volunteers to edit the spec.

I certainly do, although the link mentioned is not really a proposal,
more like a clean-slate examination of the concrete use cases that a
Web Component model should satisfy.

> ~TJ

Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 17:55:23 UTC