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

At 11:32 PM 12/30/2002 -0500, L. David Baron wrote:


>> You did not read carefully my previous response.  I wrote succinctly
>> "XEvents" which eliminates the use of global script namespace:
>I don't see anything in this section about the ability to write script
>functions that don't pollute the global namespace.

Javascript doesn't have to appear within a function.

By using the element id for the indirection as XEvents does, you don't need
the global name space connection (you do not need the function or method).


>> The only global namespace usage is the class name MyObject.
>Which is unnecessary pollution of the global namespace.

Did you realize that you could potentially put *ALL* your event handlers in
*ONE* class.  So you only have *ONE* possible collision.  So if you don't
want to use XEvents (the complete solution to your issue), then you have
this method to reduce the issue to non-issue.

Would you sacrifice having to manage one global name for the whole document
for the non-orthogonality of XBL?

If yes, then you will get XEvents as a standard much sooner than XBL will
ever be (if ever).  Why?  Because it is a thin, orthogonal layer.  Proof is
already evident by activity at

>> 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.
>Can you explain how something that is easily solved by XBL is an
>inherent problem with all of scripting?

FUD.  Again go back to the private email I sent you about sticking to the
ideals you link to from your web site.

Halloween page specifically means FUD as technique used to de-commoditize.

>> 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.
>I don't see what this has to do with not polluting the global namespace,
>if one wants to make use of functions, which are necessary to implement
>complex behavior.

See above.  You must have forgotten that Javascript does not require a
function.  Also before you FUD, I will also remind you about "anonymous
block" of code, e.g. { and } and  scoping rules.  Not sure how well
Javascript is scoped, but that is besides the point.

>> 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.
>Nobody's forcing you to use XBL.

Nobody is forcing you to not to use W3 standards.

>> Have you taken any object oriented design classes at Harvard yet??
>I'm tired of your repeated condescending comments, such as this, your
>comment in [1] "thanking" me for a "civil debate", and your comment in
>[2] about the knowledge of the people who work on Mozilla.  I will not
>be replying further to your posts.  Do not consider my silence
>indicative of agreement with any of your arguments.

Remember you wrote that I have "no clue".  I have no forgotten that remark.

So I guess that means the answer is no.  I figured you would resort to FUD
instead of sticking to your ideals.  Now you know your criticisms of
Microsoft on your web site is nothing more than propaganda.

-Shelby Moore

Received on Monday, 30 December 2002 23:47:37 UTC