Re: Why sXBL first and then XBL 2.0?

Jim,
I agree with all of your points:

* Other parts of the W3C are already involved in the XBL process. Certainly 
the CSS group has been heavily involved.
* If we try to do everything in the first round, there will be significant 
delays. (In fact, it might come to a stop.)
* It has indeed taken five months of very deep technical discussion not 
only "rename a few RCC elements", but also work through the detailed 
processing model and how to put that processing model into words. It takes 
a long time to develop standards, and the more complex the standard, the 
more time it takes.
* As a veteran of many W3C activities, I agree wholeheartedly that it is 
indeed usually better to define a minimal version that addresses a 
well-known set of needs first, and then learn from that, versus taking 
guesses about how to solve all potential problems at once.

Jon Ferraiolo
Adobe Systems, Inc.

At 10:10 PM 9/3/2004, Jim Ley wrote:


>"Anne van Kesteren" <fora@annevankesteren.nl> wrote in message
>news:41386DE5.2050606@annevankesteren.nl...
> >>> 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?
>
>What other groups?  If it's W3 WG's or Task Forces then I'm sure they're
>involved - why else would it take 5 months to rename a few RCC elements?
>
> > Starting large and ending small (the SVG profile) will probably give
> > better results.
>
>but be cursed with sXBL not being in SVG 1.2 unless that is horrendously
>delayed even more to fit in with a complete XBL specification.
>
>I also don't actually believe it would give better results, the more
>ambitious W3 reccomendations have generally been the worst, early
>implementation experience of a part is probably highly valuable.
>
>Jim.

Received on Saturday, 4 September 2004 07:22:07 UTC