Re: sXBL feedback and proposals

 > Is this all you're really trying to say: "Don't render a
 > shoe element as a shoe-tree, use a shoe-tree element" ?

Yes, very direct, thank you. More generally stated:

"Do not create a binding that, once attached, renders an
  element as something that it's not. Instead, arrange for
  the binding to be attached to a more appropriate element.
  Alternatively, change your binding to suit the element".

In practical terms, though, will hurried authors turn to
the construction or addition of element definitions each time
they find no tag perfect for their imagined binding? I doubt it.
They will hack something in, or use a generic tag as a container.
So the above "rule" is functionally only guidance. Oh well.

 > The SHOE element
> presumably has a concrete definition - if that covers horseshoe it's a 
> perfectly legitimate rendering, if not, it's a very bad rendering

This presumption is the core of the more abstract problem.

But this is an engineering exercise, not a legal argument, so
I suggest we take that aspect offline if you're still interested.
We have some useable words for the spec now.

- Nigel.

Nigel McFarlane                         
Services:                   Analysis, Programming, Writing, Education	
Expertise:            Software, Telecommunications, Internet, Physics
"Rapid Application Development with Mozilla" /

Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 12:26:35 UTC