- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 03:14:01 +0200
- To: Steffen Goeldner <sgoeldner@eurodata.de>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Steffen Goeldner wrote: > > We would like to ask if you are aware of ECMA-290? > > ECMAScript Components Specification (June 1999) > > http://www.ecma.ch/stand/ECMA-290.htm I for one was not; thanks for the reference. So in summary, it is a way of adding modularity (in the snxse of Modula-2 modules, Java classes, Ada packages) to ECMAScript, using definition files written in XML? This looks very useful. However, it does not seem to be addressing the same problem that BECSS is addressing. > We think, it's a very similar approach to BECSS. I searched for the terms "CSS" or "selector" in the ECMA-290 document and did not find them. The use of CSS selector mechanism is a central part of BECSS. It is how script may be bound onto particular elements of a document, and in a different presentation, different scripts are bound onto different elements of the same document instance without editing the document. I did not see similar functionality in ECMA-290. Similarly, I don't see anything in BECSS which describes interface, header, or public definition functionality for ECMAScript. > Generally, we would prefer an open standard from > W3C with public reviews, but as there already exists > a standard, we would appreciate that W3C and ECMA > deal with this topic in the same manner. I certainly agree with those statements and the sentiment behind them. However, I do not see a conflict here. -- Chris
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 1999 21:14:20 UTC