- From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:29:09 -0600
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
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