- From: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:45:38 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: Jon Ferraiolo <jon.ferraiolo@adobe.com>, www-svg@w3.org
At 12:30 PM 3/23/2005 -0600, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >Peter Sorotokin wrote: >>That would mean >> - binding must happen before element is ever accessed (e.g at parse >> time and in createElementNS or similar methods) >> - bindings cannot be changed through styling >>That seems to go against the direction of XBL2. We cannot have both >>well-defined methods and dynamic binding attachment > >The thing is, in any sort of reasonable system you can't have objects >randomly changing which interfaces they implement... The issue of binding >attachment through styling has been a major weak point of Mozilla XBL all >along, and causes so many problems that we are strongly considering moving >to a different, not style-related, binding mechanism altogether. That's a good data point. This consideration was a primary motivation for RCC to "bind" solely on the basis of the element name and namespace (which sXBL retained). I was told that these kind of issues are never really a problem in practice, but what you are saying indicates otherwise. However, sXBL is a common activity with CSS group - and I wonder what that the styling part of the TF would have to say. I agree that we need to have a clear view on where we are headed in sXBL timeframe. >So while attaching bindings that don't define methods or implement >interfaces via style is a somewhat reasonable approach, bindings that >actually implement interfaces probably need to be attached via some other >mechanism. That makes sense to me. Peter >-Boris >
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 18:48:36 UTC