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

At 05:20 PM 1/5/2003 -0800, David Hyatt wrote:
> From my perspective there has been a lot of debate over whether CSS is 
>the wrong layer to use for attaching XBL bindings (both sides seem to 
>just be butting heads unproductively having stated their points), but 
>there seems to have been virtually no debate regarding whether or not 
>XBL is a redundant technology.  I'm more interested in exploring this 
>issue.  Since I don't know XSLT very well.  I'm genuinely curious if it 
>is capable of solving the problems that led me to implement XBL in 
>Mozilla in the first place.

Hi David,

I am also interested.  Right now I really, really need to take a break and
catch up on sleep.  I think I've only averaged about 2 - 3 hours sleep a
night the last week or so, trying to keep up with Ian (Daniel wasn't
kidding when he said Ian can process more data than the CPU in his laptop :-)

So I will stand back for a while, and rejoin at the time I feel I can offer
productive insight.  I am by no means 100% convinced that XSLT can do every
important that XBL can.

Let me ask you about scope of interest.  One thing that interests me is the
effect of putting the replaced content in the DOM layer but anonymously,
versus an XSLT approach that expands the document prior to XHTML parser.
Is this the scope of redundance?

I think strictly it is slightly tangential.  But also I think the issue of
whether the content is visible to the XHTML parser layer and DOM layer in
standard ways is perhaps going to be related to capabilities in both sides
of the argument.

I'd like to see more posts from others, before I decide it is worth my
time.  I'd like to learn something from you and others also.  That is one
of the points of spending my time here.

BTW, thanks for you productive focus.

...probably signing off for tonight...

-Shelby Moore

Received on Sunday, 5 January 2003 20:36:09 UTC