- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
- Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 20:48:13 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Sat, 3 Sep 2011, Dominic Cooney wrote: >> > >> > I think the XBL approach is far superior here -- have authors use >> > existing elements, and use XBL to augment them. For example, if you >> > want the user to select a country from a map, you can use a <select> >> > with a list of countries in <option> elements in the markup, but then >> > use CSS/XBL to bind that <select> to a "component" that instead makes >> > the <select> look like a map, with all the interactivity that implies. >> >> That sounds appealing, but it looks really hard to implement from where >> we right now. > > I don't think "it's hard" is a good reason to adopt an inferior solution, > especially given that this is something that will dramatically impact the > Web for decades to come. > > XBL already has multiple implementations in various forms. I certainly > agree that we should adjust XBL2 to take into account lessons we have > learnt over the past five years, such as dropping namespaces and merging > it into HTML instead of forcing an XML language on authors, but taking a > significantly less capable solution simply because XBL is difficult seems > like a very poor trade-off. Be careful with the big words. It can't be that inferior if it satisfies use cases that XBL2 can't. While trying to adjust XBL2 to the set of actual use cases (http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases), you'll quickly realize that by its nature, the decorator behavior attachment simply isn't what's needed. You need element attachment. And once you need element attachment, it's fairly easy to arrive at the design that we propose with the Component Model. :DG< > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' > >
Received on Sunday, 4 September 2011 03:48:48 UTC