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

On the whole issue of what is different about XBL and XSLT and whether
those differences mean that I was correct or incorrect to wite "XBL is
(mostly) W3C redundant", I have a few points which can hopefully put this
debate to rest.

The main difference are that XBL binds later and thus merges CSS, DOM, and
event capabilities.  Some people are arguing that these merged capabilities
are convenient and desireable.  I am arguing that merging what was formally
orthogonal layers, makes them non-orthogonal, and is bad design because it
limits how layers can be mixed now and in future.  And I am arguing that
not only is it creating limitations, but also it is unnecessary because we
can already do the compelling examples using orthogonal layers.

*IF* personal preference is for merged layers, then use XBL for *your*
designs.  Imo merging layers does NOT make something non-redundant and
deserving of being a new W3 standard.  If that were the case, then we
should consider the possible permutations of merging existing orthogonal
standards to make new ones.  With only 8 orhtogonal standards, then we can
get 256 possible permutations.  Proliferation of merged layers as new
standards would wreck havoc on the standards process.

Remember I wrote "mostly" redundant.  There are probably some few things
that XBL can do that are totally unique from any other way they can done in
W3C.  But so far, IMHO no one has showed a compelling example that wuld
justify going down the road of proliferaton of merging existing standards
to obtain new non-orthogonal standards.

-Shelby Moore

Received on Monday, 30 December 2002 23:28:26 UTC