On Mar 10, 2011, at 22:51 , Daniel Glazman wrote:
> Le 10/03/11 16:46, Cameron McCormack a écrit :
>> We should think of XBL as being a DOM-based thing, rather than an XML-
>> based thing. Then we can have HTML syntax for the cases where
>> everything is within a text/html document, and XML syntax
On 03/10/2011 02:56 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
serialization, but it's easy to imagine it also having an XML
serialization for use directly in SVG or similar.
~TJ
Certainly, we'd prefer to have an XML representation of the component
language for use with XForms for similar reasons. XForms is
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Daniel Glazman
wrote:
> Le 10/03/11 16:55, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
>> The HTML serialization of an ordinary web page isn't usable in a user
>> agent having no knowledge of HTML, either. Why is this different?
>
> Do you have different serializations for another h
Le 10/03/11 16:55, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
The HTML serialization of an ordinary web page isn't usable in a user
agent having no knowledge of HTML, either. Why is this different?
Do you have different serializations for another helper technology
called CSS ? No. Why should it be different he
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Daniel Glazman
wrote:
> Le 10/03/11 16:46, Cameron McCormack a écrit :
>
>> We should think of XBL as being a DOM-based thing, rather than an XML-
>> based thing. Then we can have HTML syntax for the cases where
>> everything is within a text/html document, and XM
Le 10/03/11 16:46, Cameron McCormack a écrit :
We should think of XBL as being a DOM-based thing, rather than an XML-
based thing. Then we can have HTML syntax for the cases where
everything is within a text/html document, and XML syntax for the cases
like the ones I brought up, where you might
Cameron++
Also, this is a public wiki. If you feel like the use cases aren't
covering the problem domain to your satisfaction, please feel
encouraged to make additions.
:DG<
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Daniel Glazman:
>> Ok, so don't focus on the "proposal" word
Daniel Glazman:
> Ok, so don't focus on the "proposal" word in my message. My comment
> still stands : keeping XBL as an XML-based thing is good for user
> agents that don't need to have knowledge of a given dialect, HTML
> for instance.
We should think of XBL as being a DOM-based thing, rather th
Le 10/03/11 16:37, Dimitri Glazkov a écrit :
That's just use cases. I used the latest draft of XBL2 for syntax --
might as well be pseudocode at this point.
Ok, so don't focus on the "proposal" word in my message. My comment
still stands : keeping XBL as an XML-based thing is good for user
age
That's just use cases. I used the latest draft of XBL2 for syntax --
might as well be pseudocode at this point.
:DG<
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Daniel Glazman
wrote:
> Le 10/03/11 16:26, Dimitri Glazkov a écrit :
>>
>> Ok, this is interesting. Which proposal by Google is ghost of Daniel
>>
Le 10/03/11 16:26, Dimitri Glazkov a écrit :
Ok, this is interesting. Which proposal by Google is ghost of Daniel
referring to? I don't think there is one yet?
This kind of things for instance?
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases#Reacting_to_bound_element_state_change
Now from the right address. I blame Art for using my @google.com address :P
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dimitri Glazkov
Date: Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Moving XBL et al. forward
To: Arthur Barstow
Cc: public-webapps , Daniel Glazman
, Ian Hickson
, "ext
Ok, this is interesting. Which proposal by Google is ghost of Daniel
referring to? I don't think there is one yet?
:DG<
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> All - Daniel Glazman responded to this subject on a Member-only list and he
> gave me permission to fwd his response to
All - Daniel Glazman responded to this subject on a Member-only list and
he gave me permission to fwd his response to this list:
[[
My personal take about it is that the HTML-based component model
proposed by Google is not desirable. It's an HTML-browser centric
solution that will require from n
Here's some use cases and examples of how a subset of XBL2 is used to
define components in XForms.
We'd like to be able to support this type of work. We expect it would
be done as part of a JavaScript or server-side process, and so we just
need the language to be able to express the namespaced
Cameron McCormack:
> >
> >
> >
Tab Atkins Jr.:
>
>
>
Or that. :) I have the feeling that we don’t have agreed upon rules on
how authors are allowed to extend the platform. Whatever we deem is the
“proper” way for them to do so would be how I’d like it to happen in
SVG.
--
Cameron
(off-list)
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
>
>
>
~TJ
Arthur Barstow:
> * Should the WG pursue Dimitri Glazkov's Component Model proposal
> [Component]? If yes, who is willing to commit to work on that spec?
I promised Dmitri some use cases from the SVG WG’s perspective, but
haven’t managed to get to working on these yet. Whatever solution we
have i
On 3/9/11 1:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I do not think the XML-based version makes sense anymore. It's too
complex and has always felt a bit awkward. A set of extensions to HTML
or CSS would make more sense. I really quite liked the idea of using CSS
and having some way of writing markup in C
Here's my best understanding of the ansers to these questions from the
Forms WG perspective:
We continue to cheer for the development of a component system for the
HTML5 stack, as it will make things easier for end-user authors and for
framework developers, whether they choose to express their
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
> * What is the latest implementation status of the XBL2 CR [XBL2-CR] and
> Hixie's September 2010 version [XBL-ED] (previously referred to as
> "XBL2-cutdown")?
I'm not aware of any new developments on either front.
> * Which members of WebApps wan
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:14:48 +0100, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
* Which members of WebApps want to continue with the XML-based version
of XBL2 as codified in the XBL2 CR? If you are groupin this , what firm
commitments can you make to push the spec along the REC track? Would you
object to the Forms W
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> This email is written as the position of several Chrome engineers
> working in this problem area at Google, though not Google's official
> position.
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> * What is the latest implementa
This email is written as the position of several Chrome engineers
working in this problem area at Google, though not Google's official
position.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> * What is the latest implementation status of the XBL2 CR [XBL2-CR] and
> Hixie's September 2010
On 03/09/2011 04:14 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Ian, Leigh, Dimitri, All,
On March 11, the agenda of the so-called Hypertext Coordination Group
[HCG] will include XBL [XBL] to continue related discussions they had
during their Feb 11 call [Feb-11-Mins]. I wasn't present at that call
but based on t
Ian, Leigh, Dimitri, All,
On March 11, the agenda of the so-called Hypertext Coordination Group
[HCG] will include XBL [XBL] to continue related discussions they had
during their Feb 11 call [Feb-11-Mins]. I wasn't present at that call
but based on those meeting minutes and what Leigh said las
26 matches
Mail list logo
