Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

Here's my best understanding of the ansers to these questions from the 
Forms WG perspective:

We continue to cheer for the development of a component system for the 
HTML5 stack, as it will make things easier for end-user authors and for 
framework developers, whether they choose to express their ideas in 
markup, JavaScript, or a mix.

We do not feel it is necessary for the desktop and mobile browser 
implementations of a new component language to handle namespaced XML.

However, as XForms is, and will continue to be, a markup-based layer to 
other W3C technologies, many of which will, going forward, be specified 
as JavaScript interfaces (XHR, DOM, etc.), we want to ensure that an 
extension or optional feature can be used to accept namespaced XML 
markup and produce output including namespaced XML markup.

We expect to see XForms implemented in popular mobile and desktop 
browsers (as it currently is) in JavaScript, XSLT, and in server-side 
systems.  Thus, a syntax that can cleanly be extended to bind to (and to 
produce) namespaced markup is important to us.  Our hope is that the 
extensions necessary to express this will be minimal.  While our 
preference would be to have this syntax described in the main component 
language recommendation, we can live it with being expressed in another 
recommendation which merely adds on the syntax.

As for re-casting XBL as a series of CSS extensions, itself not 
expressed in markup, we have not discussed that issue yet, but if the 
proposal moves further forward we will.


On 03/09/2011 06:14 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Ian, Leigh, Dimitri, All,
> On March 11, the agenda of the so-called Hypertext Coordination Group 
> [HCG] will include XBL [XBL] to continue related discussions they had 
> during their Feb 11 call [Feb-11-Mins]. I wasn't present at that call 
> but based on those meeting minutes and what Leigh said last month 
> [Leigh], I think the gist of the March 11 discussion will revolve around:
> * 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")?
> * 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?
> * 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)?
> * Should the WG pursue Dimitri Glazkov's Component Model proposal 
> [Component]? If yes, who is willing to commit to work on that spec?
> Please send comments on the above as soon as possible (preferably 
> before 10:00am Boston time on March 11).
> -Art Barstow
> [XBL]
> [HCG]
> [Feb-11-Mins] 
> [Leigh] 
> [XBL2-CR]
> [XBL2-ED]
> [Component]

Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:48:05 UTC