- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:18:54 +0000
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:02:35 +0100, Olav Junker Kj?r <olav at olav.dk> wrote: > Jim Ley wrote: > > Why not just require XBL, what's the point of all this customization, > > when XBL already has the ability? > > My intention was that it should be possible (and relatively easy) to > write cross-platform widgets which would hook into the WF2 > implementation in any browser that supported WF2. but as these user agents are all going to be needed to be updated to support WF2, I really don't see the point - what you propose is already perfectly possible, but no-one's doing it because it's ugly and non-trivial to avoid namespace collisions etc. XBL goes a good way to solving these issues, it really does seem stupid to do anything that fills the gap between what we have now and XBL. Now I realise that applies to 90% of WF2, it's filling a gap, but this doesn't seem to be a sensible gap to fill, requiring XBL would be a much more logical step. > Cross-browser basically means vanilla javascript (and DOM level 0.5) - > no htc, xbl, scriptlets or other browser-specific extension mechanisms, > as cool as they may be. What iis a DOM level 0.5 ? Jim.
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 09:18:54 UTC