Re: XBL is (mostly) W3C redundant, and CSS is wrong W3C layer for semantic behavior *markup*

Shelby Moore wrote:

> Thus you are biased.  There is a saying, "Too deep in the forest to see beyond
> the trees...".

Well, since you did know what means "anonymous content" even if you
quoted the XBL spec, I gues you are yourself not deep enough in the
forest and then biased even more than I am.

> Are you proud of how stable and successful Netscape products are, especially
> Action Sheets and NS4.7?  I'd like to suggest a possible correlation between

NS4.7 is an old product. Don't compare a Cugnot's Fardier and a Ferrari
And Action Sheets were never implemented, AFAIK. They were dropped in
favor of XBL.

> "reinventing the wheel" (non-incremental, non-modular design) to how brittle
> and buggy Netscape (and Mozilla) products have historically been (and perhaps
> continue to be).  I am not just referring to the buggy and extremely late
> implementation, or the market failure, but also to a possible "spagetti" 
> philosophy of design.

No comment about the stability and user-friendliness of Cool Page.

> The "W3C Team" wrote an opinion that it is "complex" at the link above
> One can take any complex platform, and find a young person who to hack together
> something.  Let's instead compare specific examples with links to actual code,
> to create useful comparisons about comparative complexity, W3C redundance,
> principle of least power, orthogonality, etc.

As I said Bugzilla bug 47066 is a specific example.

> And he has at most 16 years of design experience to compare to.  Sometimes the

No. But I have.

> Whether is is "trivial" for you has no bearing on the issues I raised.


> YOU DIGRESSED: "endless" no, but afaik "recursive-like" buggy behavior is quite
> common in Mozilla.  The DHTML performance issues (which have plagued every
> Netscape release) had not been fixed in 2 - 3 years, the last time I checked. 
> And if I remember correctly, the profiling showed some "recursive-like"
> redundance (inefficiency).  I admit I gave up waiting before Netscape 7 (i.e.
> Mozilla 1.0) came out.

So you tested a pre-1.0 version only and complain ? Get yourself a 1.2.

>>I have just added to Mozilla Composer the ability
>>for a document's author to resize images using the mouse.
> I DIGRESS: We've had that capability in Cool Page since 1998.  In fact, with
> real-time resizing of the image presentation, which was code I submitted to
> Mozilla several years ago.

I never saw your code contribution to bug 47066, the only old bug on 
this topic. So let's be more precise: please give me the bug number 
where you attached that code. When did you attach it ?
I found no occurence of your email address in the WHOLE Bugzilla
database and the only person who ever talked of CoolPage there
is Matthew Bealey.

> Etc..  I could go on and on.  In short, this illustrates the "spagetti" method
> of design.

As soon as we have the tomato sauce...

> Everything in CSS is closer (less abstracted) from presentation than markup
> is.  It is designed to be an othogonal layer, not one interleaved with markup
> like "spagetti".

Why do you think we removed the name CSS from the title of the Selectors
Module ? You totally miss the point.

> Second, CSS is an abbreviation for "Cascading Style Sheets".

Thanks for reminding us.

> That is three different discussions.  First, using CSS to bind markup makes CSS
> not orthogonal to markup.  Second, inheriting style from the abstract markup

Geez, did you read me well ? The binding declaration is added to the CSS
instances but is not a CSS property. It's a CSS-alike property and we
allow to merge instances for simplicity.

> Absolutely false.
> A presentation (rendering) layer may not support CSS at all.  CSS are just
> "hints" to the presentation layer.  If you assume anything about CSS, then you
> are presentation dependent.

You got me wrong. I never said that a rendering engine needs CSS.

> Why should I invest in a Mozilla technology?  I'd rather leverage W3C
> technologies.

That one is excellent. I save it for future use. Btw, I guess you just
entered the "troller" category.


Received on Friday, 27 December 2002 02:23:20 UTC