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

On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Shelby Moore wrote:
> I feel my previous points already refute his summary and can stand
> on their own.

As far as I am aware, you haven't replied to any of the points I listed in
my last post [1], ever.

You specificallly declined to reply to my first set of points the last
time I brought them up, claiming it wasn't yet the time.

You argued against the second point by first saying that CSS could not
change semantics but XBL could, and then by saying that both could, at
which point I said that in that case we were back to square one, with XBL
and CSS belonging at the same layer, which you never replied to.

You declined to answer the last issue I mention below when I last brought
it up, claiming that you wanted to discuss the semantics issue instead.

I, like Hyatt, would like to discuss the pros and cons of XBL, because
as I mentioned earlier, I currently intend to push it through the W3C
process (in the CSSWG context). If there is a better technology, or if
XBL can be improved, then I would like to hear about it.

-- References --

Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Sunday, 5 January 2003 20:30:57 UTC