- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:04:57 -0500
- To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
- CC: "'Orion Adrian'" <orion.adrian@gmail.com>, www-html@w3.org
Remember that XML Events and XForms are part of XHTML 2 - so behaviors are native to the language. Its fine to talk about semantics vs. behavior vs. presentation - we do it all the time in the HTML Working Group. But don't forget that the whole idea of XML Events was to allow embedding behavior *without scripting*. Exposing the DOM and DOM events into the document space makes it pretty easy to do a lot of things that today require scripting. You can debate about whether that's a good idea or not, but... that's the direction the language is going. John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote: >Orion Adrian wrote: > > >>We're bound to get at least a few differing opinions here, but this is >>where I stand. If HTML doesn't allow for any specificity of behavior, >>where is this to be specified? It's nice to be able to say, "not my >>problem", but we do have to take this into consideration. Whose >>problem is it? >> >> > >Scripting. > >XHTML 2 - semantic logic >Scripting (JS?) - behaviour >CSS - presentation > >Yes? No? Maybe? > >If currently scripting/DOM manipulation is lacking, should that be XHTML's >problem any more than it is CSS's problem? > >If you insist on using behavioural HTML, use an older doc type that allow >this: remember that HTML 4.01 is perfectly stable and usable for 99% of >current web sites/applications out there today. > >JF >-- >John Foliot foliot@wats.ca >Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca >Web Accessibility Testing and Services >http://www.wats.ca >Phone: 1-613-482-7053 > > > > > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 13 June 2005 22:05:15 UTC