Re: Why Binding Scripting in Style Layer Conflates Semantics

Assuming the consensus would be:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005Nov/0170.html

(note I misused word "you" at end of above post, I did not intend "you")

(1) Another advantage over XSLT transformations that proponents of XBL
have mentioned is that CSS is persistant, implicating that scripting on
the DOM would automatically receive any XBL transformations.  In other
words, if <select> has been implemented as <a>s by an XBL script applied
to all <select>s via CSS (pseudo code follows):

<style>select { bind SelectAsATag.xml }</style>

then instantiating a <select> in DOM would thus be automatically 'binded'
(bound) to SelectAsATag.xml implementation.  In short, the style bindings
persist in DOM scripting.

However, note that XAML has a <style> mechanism which appears to be
persistant and apparently does not obscure semantics.  There is a <style
basedon="class"> syntax.  I have not studied it enough, nor do I expect it
is near it's final state of evolution.

Also I suggest that in XAML (a possible future of the web), most scripting
will happen in the "code behind" and thus the .Net CLR becomes the DOM. 
The implications are very important.

And remember not to confuse the DOM with "markup layer".  Semantics
interopt above/on-top-of (not 'at') the "markup layer".


(2) Just because we declare that semantic extension via XBL behind CSS is
orthogonal to (off limits to) markup consumers, in order to avoid the
interoperability issues, does not enforce it.  We can not stop markup
consumers (data miners) from trying to extract more information in order
to gain a competitive advantage.

Thus we are somewhat back to my original complaint.  If you've conflated
the layers, you've conflated them.  Period.  I am still open to the
concensus in link above, with all caveats.

Happy Thanksgiving to those in USA!


-- 

Kind Regards,
Shelby Moore
http://coolpage.com

Received on Sunday, 27 November 2005 03:17:10 UTC