headers
Cameron McCormack | 6 Mar 2007 03:29
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [XBL] XBL Elements


Ian Hickson:
> That wouldn't work, since it's possible for an implementation to support 
> SVG, XBL, and other languages, at the same time.
> 
> In UAs that support CSS's 'display' property, like SVG UAs, the given CSS 
> block is enough. Since SVG UAs have to support the 'display' property, I 
> don't see that there is a problem with the text.

This problem isn’t important enough for it to be a formal objects, so
you can change the DoC document to state that the issue is closed.

Thanks,

Cameron

--

-- 
Cameron McCormack, http://mcc.id.au/
	xmpp:heycam <at> jabber.org  ▪  ICQ 26955922  ▪  MSN cam <at> mcc.id.au
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Ian Hickson | 6 Mar 2007 03:31
Picon

Re: [XBL] XBL Elements

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> 
> Ian Hickson:
> > That wouldn't work, since it's possible for an implementation to support 
> > SVG, XBL, and other languages, at the same time.
> > 
> > In UAs that support CSS's 'display' property, like SVG UAs, the given CSS 
> > block is enough. Since SVG UAs have to support the 'display' property, I 
> > don't see that there is a problem with the text.
> 
> This problem isn’t important enough for it to be a formal objects, so
> you can change the DoC document to state that the issue is closed.

Too late, we had the transition call this morning. :-) But thanks.

--

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Cameron McCormack | 6 Mar 2007 03:31
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [XBL] XBL Elements


Cameron McCormack:
> This problem isn’t important enough for it to be a formal objects, so
> you can change the DoC document to state that the issue is closed.

s/objects/objection/
s/closed/rejected/

--

-- 
Cameron McCormack, http://mcc.id.au/
	xmpp:heycam <at> jabber.org  ▪  ICQ 26955922  ▪  MSN cam <at> mcc.id.au
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Anne van Kesteren | 8 Mar 2007 17:27
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: A question on sXBL and XBL 2.0


On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:53:24 +0200, Hervé Girod  
<herve.girod <at> club-internet.fr> wrote:
> However, I think it would be interesting to provide a rough draft about  
> the differences between the latest sXBL working draft and XBL 2.0.  Anne  
> van Kesteren already provided a synthesis of the differences in 2005  
> here <http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/11/xbl>.

FWIW, I don't think I'll update that document anytime soon. Feel free to  
borrow its contents and make your own (revised) comparison.

--

-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Arthur Barstow | 8 Mar 2007 23:47
Picon

http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widgets-reqs-20070209


Bert,

Thanks very much for your excellent comments! It is going to take us  
some time to adresss all of them.

As I mentioned in a separate thread on this list, the document,  
particularly section 1.1.2 is a bit confusing because it enumerates  
several facets of Widgets that *could* be standardized. However, some  
of those facets are not in the WAF WG's scope (as defined by WG's  
Charter). For instance "APIs for device services" is not within this  
WG's scope. However, such APIs could be within the scope of the Web  
API WG as well as the DI/UWA WG. Likewise, those types of APIs also  
appear to be in scope for OMA's Device Profile Evolution [DPE] work.

Anyhow, I expect the next Draft to clarify those aspects of Widgets  
that in and out of scope for the WAF WG.

Regards,

Art Barstow
---

[DPE] <http://www.openmobilealliance.org/release_program/rd.html>

On Feb 28, 2007, at 12:06 PM, ext Bert Bos wrote:

>
> Hello WAF WG, hello Art,
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Arthur Barstow | 9 Mar 2007 19:13
Picon

Here's Web Forms 2.0 ...


Chris, Dan, All - as you probably know, the WAF WG published Web  
Forms 2.0 last August.

It was my understanding the new HTML would take over that spec but I  
was unable to find related text in the HTML WG's charter.

What is your understanding on this issue?

Regards,

Art Barstow
---

[WF2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/web-forms-2/>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Norman Walsh | 14 Mar 2007 16:18
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Last call comments on XML Binding Language (XBL) 2.0

/ Ian Hickson <ian <at> hixie.ch> was heard to say:
|> |> > 2.16. The id Attribute of XBL Elements
|> |> 
|> |> There is, of course, a historical preceding for naming attributes of 
|> |> type ID "id". However, we recommend that the attribute of type ID in XBL 
|> |> 2.0 be spelled "xml:id".
|> |
|> | I don't understand. Could you elaborate on why you recommend making the 
|> | attribute name longer?
|> 
|> Because it will allow XML processes to recognize that the attributes are 
|> of type ID without relying on external information such as DTDs and 
|> schemas. See http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/#intro
|
| Why would this single feature be worthy of discoverability when the entire 
| rest of the XBL processing model requires the UA to have built-in 
| knowledge? I understand that xml:id would be very appropropriate and an 
| important feature of proprietary languages, but I don't understand why it 
| would have any benefits in the context of a language that is only useful 
| in conjunction with UA-native support and that is intended to be used as 
| a well-known standard language on the Web.
|
| I have marked your request as a potential formal objection.

Although I failed to close the loop before the Director's decision
call for XBL 2.0, the XML Core Working Group would like to be
identified as formally objecting to the resolution of the "id"
attribute issue.

Thank you, in advance, for any additional consideration that you can
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Hausenblas, Michael | 14 Mar 2007 23:13
Picon
Favicon

[RDFa] Widgets Schema and an Example in RDFa + HTML


I recently read your proposals for a widget specification - very
impressive!

In the Widgets 1.0 Requirements WD you write ...

	'The manifest language must be defined using XML [...]'

Well, this doesn't exclude RDF, right? So here are my 2 cents:

Taking the Widget specification [2] as a start, I defined an
RDF schema for the manifest document [3], and created a sample widget,
marked up with RDFa + HTML [4]. To actually generate the RDF that is 
embedded in the HTML file, one has extract it; the result of this is
available at [5].

I hope this helps you in your discussions. Please note that with this
approach other issues (IPR, content negotiation, etc.) can be easily
addressed as well - as shown in the sample with the license info.

Cheers,
	Michael

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/#req_xml
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/work/waf-wg/widgets-schema.rdf
[4]
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/work/waf-wg/xsample-widget/index.html
[5]
http://torrez.us/services/rdfa/?url=http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/w
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Marcos Caceres | 15 Mar 2007 03:35
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: [RDFa] Widgets Schema and an Example in RDFa + HTML


Hi Michael,
Thanks for the feedback. Although your idea is interesting, I have not
seen any widget engines that actually use RDF for the metadata format.
For the widget spec, we are following industry practices and I think
it would be too much a revolutionary step to require a widget engine
to have to process RDF.

Besides, if I had my way, I would do away with XML all together and
just to the manifest/configuration with simple JavaScript Object
Notation. I am not convinced that there is any real advantage in using
XML over other formats.
Marcos

On 3/15/07, Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas <at> joanneum.at> wrote:
>
>
> I recently read your proposals for a widget specification - very
> impressive!
>
> In the Widgets 1.0 Requirements WD you write ...
>
>         'The manifest language must be defined using XML [...]'
>
> Well, this doesn't exclude RDF, right? So here are my 2 cents:
>
> Taking the Widget specification [2] as a start, I defined an
> RDF schema for the manifest document [3], and created a sample widget,
> marked up with RDFa + HTML [4]. To actually generate the RDF that is
> embedded in the HTML file, one has extract it; the result of this is
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dan Connolly | 15 Mar 2007 16:26
Picon
Favicon

Re: Here's Web Forms 2.0 ...


On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 18:13 +0000, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 
> 
> Chris, Dan, All - as you probably know, the WAF WG published Web  
> Forms 2.0 last August.
> 
> It was my understanding the new HTML would take over that spec but I  
> was unable to find related text in the HTML WG's charter.
> 
> What is your understanding on this issue?

I don't have a very clear understanding of this issue.

I'm sorta hoping the brainstorming exercise will show
what WG participants are most interested in working on.
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007JanMar/0045.html

I don't have anything definitive to offer, and I don't
expect to until our co-chair is in place.

> Regards,
> 
> Art Barstow
> ---
> 
> [WF2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/web-forms-2/>

--

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane