Re: sXBL feedback and proposals

Second attempt.

> I don't think it's a good idea to mention any XHTML in the sXBL draft, 
> otherwise it's clear (perhaps change iframe to "image".

"Suppose an SVG document exploits XBL and contains an <image> that is 
also SVG. The parent document has five references to an XBL external 
resource R and the <image> content has two references to R. The parent 
document will retrieve one instance of R and re-use it four times. The 
<image> document will retrieve one instance of R and re-use it once."

>>"An XBL binding cannot change the nature of a bound element, it can
>>only change the element's implementation. A binding that is poorly
>>conceived could pervert the intent of an XML element, but that is
>>merely a use-case showing ignorance of the spirit of XML."

 > What's "the spirit of XML" ?
 > I agree that the original paragraph is very strange,
 > but I don't think this has particularly improved it.

"An sXBL binding cannot change the nature of a bound element,
it can only change the element's implementation. Bindings and
other implementation detail should support the original definition
of the bound element. A binding that is poorly conceived could
pervert the intent of an XML element, but that is merely a
use-case showing poor standards compliance."

The problem here is one of specialisation. Bindings specialise
abstract tag definitions with a concrete implementation.
Specialisation can occur at all points on a continuum that ranges
from strict subsets (squares are polygons) to disjoint
speciation (running is not fast walking). There's no spec writable
that can legislate against or demark that philosophical problem.
All we can do is warn against bad practice.

- N.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel McFarlane                                   nrm@kingtide.com.au
Services:                   Analysis, Programming, Writing, Education	
Expertise:            Software, Telecommunications, Internet, Physics
"Rapid Application Development with Mozilla" / www.nigelmcfarlane.com

Received on Sunday, 17 October 2004 23:35:06 UTC