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

At 09:49 PM 12/30/2002 -0500, L. David Baron wrote:
>On Monday 2002-12-30 20:29 -0600, Shelby Moore wrote:
>> >  Additional
>> >    namespace collisions (with non-standardized functions, anyway, where
>> >    we don't have a good reason) break existing web pages that use
>> >    functions with those names.
>> Namespace issues have been addressed in XML and other standards coming such
>> as XEvents.
>I'm not talking about XML namespaces.  I'm talking about the namespace
>of functions in the scripting language used.  Your response doesn't
>answer the point I made.

You did not read carefully my previous response.  I wrote succinctly
"XEvents" which eliminates the use of global script namespace:

I have mentioned XEvents probably more than 5 or 10 times already in my
posts on this thread.

I also made the point that XSLT (without XEvents or other orthogonal event
layer) is inherently no worse than XHTML (XML).

Are you familiar with the Javascript OO syntax as in following example?

function MyObject()
  this.MyMethod = function() { ... };

onevent="var o = new MyObject; o.MyObject();"

The only global namespace usage is the class name MyObject.  But as I said
that is not the preferred or optimal solution.  As I said, this is no worse
than what you can do with XML.  It is a limitation of the global name space
of scripting.  It is not inherent in XSLT.  It is inherent problem of
scripting, because all instances of scripting sit at same global scope.

I mentioned "XEvents" as the way to compartmentalize event handlers without
using global script namespace.  You should study the XEvents specification.
 XEvents is one orthogonal events layer solution to the point you raise.
Unlike XBL, it is not the solution forced on you.  You are free in XSLT to
choose your own future.

Your argument that we MUST non-orthogonally merge events layer and semantic
binding layer in order to avoid global name space collisions in scripting
is like saying we should sew our best matched pants and shirt together.  It
is illogical.  That is why I keep saying that non-orthogonal design will
exclude other things.  Whereas, orthogonal design does NOT exclude.  We can
certainly have orthogonal standards (clothes) which address the problem of
event modularization to avoid use of the global script name space.  In
fact, I already succinctly answered you by writing "XEvents".  I think I've
written that in about 5 - 10 posts already.

Have you taken any object oriented design classes at Harvard yet??

-Shelby Moore

Received on Monday, 30 December 2002 22:57:19 UTC