- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:18:21 +0200
- To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Paul Nelson (ATC)" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> If this spec is called "Behavioral Extensions to CSS," it begs > the questions of "what's the relationship of this and > Microsoft's behaviors, heavily used and supported in 80% of the > web browsers currently in use? Why isn't this just the > 'behavior' property that Microsoft implemented nearly a decade > ago, since it seems to do the same thing?" For one good reason at least : it's easy to name '::bound-element' from a 'binding' property with a clear semantic relationshiop. You can't do that with 'behavior'. For one second good reason : it's conflicting with MSFT's property and it's not specified the same way ! </Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 05:19:25 UTC