Re: Comments on 1st sXBL Working Draft

Micah Dubinko wrote:
>  RelaxNG language definition: (in general) please use compact syntax.
>  (this is, after all, primarily human-readable information here)

That's by and large a matter of taste. I don't find RNC particularly 
easy to read, though it is more readable than DTD. But part of the 
reason we picked RNG was so that people could convert it to RNC if they 
wanted to.

>  2.2. The definition Element - asks for comment on "semantics". I
>  believe the proper expression is "The definition element defines a
>  presentation and behavior binding. It does not affect the intent
>  expressed by an element."

That seems to keep coming back to haunt us :) Your wording might do the 
trick, though I'm not sure I've seen elements expressing intent. Maybe 
I'm just not listening.

>  2.3. The template Element, and 2.4 The content Element - The RelaxNG
>  language definition here doesn't seem to indicate any content
>  (wildcard) at all.

So far I've pulled all the wildcards (same thing in the SVG RNG) and was 
  considering NRL as a better way to express this. Comments welcome.

>  2.7. The id attribute of XBL elements - how does this provide
>  'id-ness'? Is xml:id a possibility here?

Word is that xml:id will be ready very soon. I would indeed certainly 
recommend that sXBL use xml:id to know about IDs rather than ask people 
to rely on DTDs or on Attr.setId.

Robin Berjon

Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 09:28:42 UTC