- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:24:38 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
* Robin Berjon wrote: >>>* 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. >> >> You mean you do not think that it should be a requirement for whatever >> comes after sXBL that it is fully "backwards-compatible" with sXBL? > >Whoa, you're taking a huge leap full of unfounded assumptions here. I am rather asking for clarification so I don't have to assume anything. If a general purpose XBL language ought to be compatible to sXBL, it is constrained in a number of ways, changing core concepts of the language would be difficult or not feasible; that constrains how one could learn from the sXBL approach and an evaluation for fitness of such a require- ment would mean to take guesses how to solve potential problems. As Jon states that it is usually better not to do that, I see the above a fair interpretation but other interpretations are possible too, which is why I ask. I would be surprised by his statement along with statements that a general purpose XBL language MUST by fully compatible to sXBL, rather than, for example, that compatibility would be nice - but not essential.
Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 23:25:20 UTC