On 7/09/11 7:20 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Ian Hickson<i...@hixie.ch> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011, Dominic Cooney wrote:
I think the XBL approach is far superior here -- have authors use
existing elements, and use XBL to augment them. For example, if you
want the user to select a country from a map, you can use a<select>
with a list of countries in<option> elements in the markup, but then
use CSS/XBL to bind that<select> to a "component" that instead makes
the<select> look like a map, with all the interactivity that implies.
That sounds appealing, but it looks really hard to implement from where
we right now.
I don't think "it's hard" is a good reason to adopt an inferior solution,
Likewise, intimating that something is better because it's hard is a
distraction.
especially given that this is something that will dramatically impact the
Web for decades to come.
The more complex the thing, the more we're saddled with. XBL(2) is
more complex than the proposed model. It likewise needs to be
justified all the more.
I agree that XBL2 may have been too ambitious for it's time.
I would say that the simplest thing that would be useful would be:
a) provide a bare-bones shadow DOM
b) implement something like the NodeWatcher proposal -
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/MutationReplacement#NodeWatch_.28A_Microsoft_Proposal.29
These features are independently useful and would facilitate Javascript
library solutions similar to both HTMLElement.register and XBL2.
Then step back and see what the Javascript guys do with it. The next
step might write itself.
Sean
