Re: Why sXBL first and then XBL 2.0?

>> My question is: why making an SVG-specific version first and then a 
>> more general-purpose XBL specification, XBL 2.0?
> Because a more general purpose one will take longer to make and require
> input from more groups. The idea is to transition the RCC over to sXBL
> so that the eventual XBL 2 is an upwards compatible superset of sXBL.

This contradicts with your next point, a bit.

>> Anything that will be defined here as sXBL will certainly also be in 
>> the more general XBL 2.0?
> Yes - its to be a strict superset.

If it will be a strict superset, don't the other groups have to agree on 
what you have created now? Starting large and ending small (the SVG 
profile) will probably give better results.

  Anne van Kesteren

Received on Friday, 3 September 2004 13:13:29 UTC