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

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

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:46:44 +0000
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bwt35ye4r.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

Anne van Kesteren writes:

> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:22:32 +0100, Henry S. Thompson
> <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>> Not sure how you concluded that it's a "half way house" between
>>> xslt and javascript.
>> Only that a moderately big deal is made in the introduction (the only
>> part I've read carefully so far :-) of the ability XBL2 provides for
>> effectively re-ordering children. . .
> The difference from XSLT for this particular scenario is that XBL
> doesn't  actually alter the underlying DOM. The behavior XBL adds is
> also  "optional": a document means the same with or without the
> associated XBL  being applied.

That's what I was trying to suggest -- not XSLT, but not just script

But your reply, which is echoed in the spec., confuses me.  When I
point my browser at an XML document with an <?xml-stylesheet. . .?>
PI, e.g. [1], in what sense does anything "alter the underlying DOM"?

The XML DOM is left alone, an new HTML DOM is built, and rendered. 

XSLT is spec'd to produce a new, distinct result tree, certainly not
to modify its input. . .


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/structures.xml
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Monday, 29 January 2007 16:47:18 UTC

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