Re: Why Binding Scripting in Style Layer Conflates Semantics

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shelby Moore" <>
> Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>> I didn't find anything there about "graceful fallback" .
> [snip]
>> To be able to do any fallback UA must be told about class and base class
>> of the <mapselect>.
> I gave the answer already in my previous post:
> <select
>  xmlns=""
>  xmlns:x=""
>  x:Class="MyNamespace.MapSelect">
> </select>
> Above you have <select> that has been subclassed into
> x:Class="MyNamespace.MapSelect".
> The code is implemented in .Net (C# example) as:
> namespace MyNamespace
> {
>  class MapSelect : select
>  {...}
> }
> I am not sure if .Net has classes for (x)HTML tags yet, but this above is
> for architectural point.

As I understand you proposal is to put 
element class information into element attributes. 
Sounds good, but immidiately causing the next question:

Let's say we have following:


>From practical implementation point of view having defined
 x:Class="MyNamespace.MapSelect" is not enough as this
does not tell me what is the superclass of MyNamespace.MapSelect.

So practically we need here:
    x:SuperSuperClass="MyNamespace.Widget"  >

    x:SuperSuperClass="MyNamespace.TextBlock"  >

This is not practical at least. In real life 
scenario such inheritance information will be
placed in some document describing
inheritance graph of the system of classes.

Thus we are getting external class graph sheet.

And at this point my question is:

Why it is better in principle than style sheets
describing representational (and probably behavioral)


Andrew Fedoniouk.

Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 17:18:26 UTC