- From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:20:26 -0800
- To: chris@w3.org
- Cc: raman@google.com, ht@inf.ed.ac.uk, annevk@opera.com, www-tag@w3.org
Personally, I believe hard-wiring a selector language is a bug; I also believe strongly that the ever-continuing fight between CSS vs XSLT derived technologies -- in this instance selectors vs XPath -- is a tremendous waste of time. Chris Lilley writes: > On Monday, January 29, 2007, 6:03:16 PM, T.V wrote: > > > TVR> So in summary, today's XBL spec which traces its roots to the > TVR> Mozilla implementation talks about binding a markup tree to a > TVR> particular styling language, CSS, and a set of event handlers > TVR> authored in a specific implementation language, JavaScript --- > TVR> it authors those associations using a very specific language for > TVR> picking out nodes out of a DOM -- namely CSS Selectors. > > Actually todays Mozilla XBL spec uses XPath for that (although the > Mozilla XBL implementation uses only bare names); the sXBL spec was > hesitating between XPath and CSS Selectors (most implementors of sXBL > favouring XPath); and XBL2 uses CSS selectors. > > And the most usual case is to create markup - HTML or SVG - rather > than just CSS styling. > > But apart from that, yes. > > > > -- > Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org > Interaction Domain Leader > Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group > W3C Graphics Activity Lead > Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG -- Best Regards, --raman 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 23:21:10 UTC