Re: Why Binding Scripting in Style Layer Conflates Semantics

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shelby Moore" <shelby@coolpage.com>


>
> Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>> What I shall do if I will get <mapselect> which is
>> unknown to my engine, as an example?
>> What is the fallback schema assumed?
>
> I forgot to address the sub-classing essense of your point.  XAML most
> definitely provides the graceful fallback to base class functionality:
>
> http://windowssdk.msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/wcp_conceptual/html/0ff5f36e-dd84-44d1-aa3e-5bb4f147b169.asp

I didn't find anything there about "graceful fallback" .

>
> <Canvas
>  xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/avalon/2005"
>  xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/xaml/2005"
>  x:Class="MyNamespace.MyCanvasCode">
>  <Button Click="Button_Click">Click Me!</Button>
> </Canvas>
>
> In above example, imagine <Canvas> is a <select>, and MyCanvasCode is
> MapSelect.  Disclaimer, I have not studied this syntax well yet.
>
>

To be able to do any fallback UA must be told about class and base class
of the <mapselect>.  This can be accomplished by a) supplying
namespace specific to the domain (a.k.a. type/style sheet) or b)
by using element attributes.

So <mapselect> will get something like

<mapselect type="select">

At this point I would like to know why it is better in principle than:

<select type="mapselect" />

-or-

mapselect { behavior: select;  }
<mapselect />

?

Thanks,

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com

Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 07:32:33 UTC