Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

Ok, this is interesting. Which proposal by Google is ghost of Daniel
referring to? I don't think there is one yet?


On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Arthur Barstow <> wrote:
> All - Daniel Glazman responded to this subject on a Member-only list and he
> gave me permission to fwd his response to this list:
> [[
> My personal take about it is that the HTML-based component model
> proposed by Google is not desirable. It's an HTML-browser centric
> solution that will require from non-HTML user agents to have knowledge
> of the HTML namespace. Furthermore, it's in my opinion a rather
> unbalanced proposal, trying to integrate things into HTML to "make
> things simpler" but adding too much complexity to make them really
> simple.
> I'd rather stick to an XML-based solution or, to allow the search of
> a compromise, establish the list of requirements first and then decide
> on the format and dialect.
> </Daniel>
> ]]
> On Mar/9/2011 9:14 AM, ext 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 Thursday, 10 March 2011 21:26:39 UTC