On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 19:24:03 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote:
For what it's worth, it's a requirement for us to be able to use namespaces of some sorts since we're planning on implementing XUL using XBL2. There are however multiple ways we can do this and I'll need to look into which approach XUL developers prefer.
Why do you need namespaces for XUL? Isn't it all in the same namespace?
I'm also not sure that we can do without <style> and <script>, but we can always add those as an extension to our implementation.
They are simply no longer in the specification because HTML already has them. And since XBL is now an extension of HTML they did not need to be defined anymore.
In general I would have appreciated at least being pinged about our requirements before these changes had been made. In the current state its unlikely that we'll be following the specification without modifications.
That does seem like it would have been good. On the other hand, it's just a sketch and easily reverted/changed.
-- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
