Re: Comments about sXBL

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your answer. However, I fail to understand some points.

If I write this:
<xbl:definition element="myNS:button">
        <svg:handler ev:event="DOMActivate"...>...</svg:handler>

you say: "This will handle events on xbl:template element, not on the 
bound element"
But the current proposal is to have handler in a <handlerGroup> element 
so paraphrasing you, this will handle events on xbl:handlerGroup, not on 
the bound element. Am I wrong? If so, what is the difference? Is it just 
semantics associated with these elements? or maybe because I don't 
understand what are the implications of "because XML Events works purely 
on CoreDOM level".

Regarding the duplication of event listeners when putting them in the 
template, AFAIU this is an implementation issue. One could decide not to 
clone the event listeners.
Regarding the fact that it would force having a template element, I 
agree. But the reverse is true. Right now you are forced to have a 
handlerGroup every time you have to handle events. I think it is just a 
question of how many elements you want to define in XBL. However, one 
benefit of having the handlers outside the template is to have a clear 
cut between what is presentation and what is event handling. But the 
question is: What happens if handlers are part of the elements replacing 
the 'content' element ?
BTW, could you post or describe an meaningful example of binding using 
only events, no presentational part.


Cyril Concolato
Dept. Comelec
Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunications, Paris
46, rue Barrault 75013 Paris
Tel: +33145817991    Fax: +33145804036

Received on Thursday, 23 September 2004 07:01:23 UTC