- From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
- Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 19:11:52 -0600
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
At 12:58 AM 1/6/2003 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: [...] Blah, blah Do any one (other than the "vested XBL supporters") want me to respond to Ian's summary below point-by-point?? Because I feel my previous points already refute his summary and can stand on their own. I am personally tired of writing the same points over and over. I feel (perhaps incorrectly) Ian's summary below is just a challenge to draw me into another non-productive verbosity debate. -Shelby Moore >For the record, here is a summary of my response to your original >post, taking into account all your comments so far: > >1. XBL is not W3C redundant, because there is no other spec that can > do what it can: > > * Bind event handlers and styles to an element from the style > layer. > > * Bind event handlers and styles to an element without affecting > the original DOM. > > * Allow dynamic changes to the DOM to be reflected by the binding > dynamically. > > * Allow individual elements to have bindings changed dynamically. > > * Allow multiple bindings to be added to the same element > simultaneously. > > * Allow the user to individually override bindings without > completely overriding the author bindings. > > * Allow new functions to be defined in the scope of the bindings > without _any_ pollution of the document namespace. > > * Bind stylesheets to subtrees of the document without affecting > any other elements. > >2. CSS is the right layer at which to introduce XBL, because XBL > addresses exactly the same problem as CSS -- presentation and > behaviour. XBL affects semantics in just the same was as CSS. > >3. XBL doesn't actually depend on any other W3C technology, it is > designed to be independent of the scripting, DOM, and styling > languages used. However, it can integrate tightly with W3C > technologies, making it highly suitable in a W3C context.
Received on Sunday, 5 January 2003 20:11:09 UTC