W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2007

Re: XML Binding Language (XBL) 2.0 -- Agenda item?

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 13:41:43 +0100
Message-ID: <476742558.20070201134143@w3.org>
To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
Cc: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

On Tuesday, January 30, 2007, 11:31:56 AM, Henry wrote:

HST> Chris Lilley writes:

>> On Monday, January 29, 2007, 5:46:44 PM, Henry wrote:
>> HST> The XML DOM is left alone, an new HTML DOM is built,
>> HST> and rendered.
>>
>> What happens when the original XML DOM changes?

HST> Nothing, unless the script that makes the change also re-invokes
HST> XSLT.  I take your point, thanks.

I think you take part of it, since 'ok, just re-invoke the transform'
is an obvious rejoinder.

What happens to the interaction state on those parts of the result
subtree that were not affected by any change, if you re-invoke the
transform?

For XSLT, it is lost.

For XBL, it is retained.

This means that constructing (say) an SVG implementation of some
abstract widget (like, say, an XForms control) is feasible (and has
been done) - your whole drop down menu doesn't go away and loose your
place just because a new item got added to, or deactivated from, a
submenu.

-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2007 12:42:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:14 UTC