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

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

From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:03:16 -0800
Message-ID: <17854.10452.595946.74785@retriever.corp.google.com>
To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
Cc: annevk@opera.com, raman@google.com, www-tag@w3.org


Here is my understanding of where XBL like beasts fit within the
taxonomy of languages.

I believe that the fact that today's XBL is used to declare the
association between a given markup tree 
and a set of CSS styles and Javascript behaviors 
is an implementation detail. With respect to the role  xbl-like
languages play, their primary contribution is in being able to
author  the said association.

So in summary, today's XBL spec which traces its roots to the
Mozilla implementation  talks about binding a markup tree to a
particular styling language, CSS, and a set of event handlers
authored in a specific  implementation language, JavaScript ---
it authors those associations using a very specific language for
picking out nodes out of a DOM -- namely CSS Selectors.

However all this is a reflection of a given snapshot in time --
and I dont believe these details to be intrinsic 
to the notion of  a binding language as such.

Henry S. Thompson writes:
 > 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
 > either.
 > 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. . .
 > ht
 > [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)
 > iD8DBQFFviT0kjnJixAXWBoRAmX4AJ0Q5uNnn1oagEfdiUApQJA4sZ06rwCfdcvm
 > 5aDxzVbTnrD0ySwg3zs1Mzg=
 > =m4Nz
 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Best Regards,

Title:  Research Scientist      
Email:  raman@google.com
WWW:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/
Google: tv+raman 
GTalk:  raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com
PGP:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Monday, 29 January 2007 17:04:21 UTC

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