Ooops. Attachment included ...Title: Comments on Mozilla's XML Binding Language 2.0; Revision 1.43
Introduction
This document was created by the W3C's Web Application Formats (WAF) Working Group and contains issues/comments/questions/etc. regarding Mozilla's XML Binding Language 2.0 document. The comments reflect versions 1.42 and 1.43.
Each issue is included in its section. Some of the issues contain small snippets of context to help clarify the issue.
Date: 2006-05-16.
1.1. Terminology and Conventions
ISSUE-A The definition of compound document must be consistent with the CDF WG's definition.
ISSUE-B Why does the specification state that in addition to following error handling rules UAs may abort all processing? Once documents are out there that rely on error handling (they shouldn't of course) UAs that abort all processing may have to revert that just because other UAs don't.
1.2.1. Attributes Containing Selectors
ISSUE-C If this specification says nothing at all about the level of Selector support that is required, will that result in interoperablity issues (e.g. partial and different levels of selector support)? This appears to violate Selectors specification section 12.
2. XBL Elements
ISSUE-D Need to clarify absent in the second paragraph e.g. does it mean ignore?
ISSUE-E To clarify the following sentence and CSS code, replace the sentence and CSS code with something like Elements in the XBL Namespace should have the
displayproperty set tononeby default..XBL user agents should act as if they had the following rules in their UA style sheet:
@namespace xbl url(http://www.mozilla.org/xbl2); xbl|* { display: none; }ISSUE-F Need to clarify rendered in this context. Also, what does this imply regarding style sheets?
That is to say, XBL elements should not be rendered.
2.3. The
implementationElementISSUE-G Does on first use in the description of the
implementationelement imply that if I modify it, bind it to some other element, that element won't have the modifications?ISSUE-H Vendor specific attributes should be in a namespace.
2.7. The
xbl:inheritsAttributeISSUE-I The definition of xbl:inherits should be expanded to include intrinsic properties of the bound element into account, such as language, base URI, etc.
2.10. The
handlerElementISSUE-J Why does the
handlerelement not have asrcattribute to facilitate script re-use?2.13. The
prefetchElementISSUE-K This functionality of the
prefetchelement does not seem essential to XBL. Perhaps it should be specified in a separate (modular) specification.3.2.1. XForms Actions
ISSUE-L Since the XForms reference is non-normative, this section should be non-normative.
4.1.1. Importing binding documents
ISSUE-M the use of PIs is discouraged by some communities (i.e. the W3C's TAG). Can this PI's functionality be replaced by some other syntax - as the SVG WG did with the
importelement of sXBL?ISSUE-N Need to clarify if using -xbl-binding or addBinding() does not result in the rest of the binding document being applied if there is a match. For example,if addBinding() is called and an XBL document is fetched <binding element="'> on some of the other bindings don't automatically match anything in the document.
4.2. Attachment using CSS
ISSUE-O the Note: in this section needs clarification in particular attach versus fetch versus import.
4.6. Binding Inheritance
ISSUE-P to clarify the figure, add code that results in what the figure shows.
5.1. Rules for Shadow Content Generation
ISSUE-Q The following paragraph needs clarification because a
bindingelement may have at most onetemplateelement and the text implies otherwise.The bindings in the bound element's list of bindings are first checked to see if any have shadow content templates. If any do, then the most derived such template is the primary generating binding. Otherwise, there isn't one.
ISSUE-R The processing model for the
inheriteddescribed in this section is difficult to follow.5.3. Attribute Forwarding
ISSUE-S It seems parts of this section are XML 1.0 specific by referring to Namespaces in XML 1.0. This might be a more general issue with what happens when binding an XML 1.0 binding document to an XML 1.1 bound document.
ISSUE-T It is unclear if it is good for 'text' or any value not mentioned here being processed as normal. May also want to have an "extension" at some point and not want older implementations to forward an attribute if they don't recognize it. Perhaps the spec should say something about types starting with 'xbl' MUST be ignored and not processed?
5.4. Processing
contentElementsISSUE-U The processing model for content elements in section 2.5 should be combined with the processing model in this section (i.e. consolidate the model in one location of the document).
5.7.3. The
:-xbl-bound-elementPseudo-ClassISSUE-V Should add a forward reference to section 5.10.
5.7.4. Matching Pseudo-Elements
ISSUE-W If the CSS parser does not support these pseudo elements, does the XBL User Agent need to support them?
6.1. The
XBLImplementationInterfaceISSUE-X Need an example on how this interface is used. For example is this something the author has to create?
7.3. Mouse Event Handler Filters
ISSUE-Y Need to add a Device Independence disclaimer/warning about this functionality.
7.4. Key Event Handler Filters
ISSUE-Z Need to add a Device Independence disclaimer/warning about this functionality.
7.7. Modifiers
ISSUE-AA Need to add a Device Independence disclaimer/warning about this functionality.
7.10. Mouseover and Mouseout Events
ISSUE-AB Need to add a Device Independence disclaimer/warning about this functionality.
On May 17, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:Hi All,The W3C's Web Application Formats (WAF) Working Group ([1]) has reviewed Revision 1.43 of Mozilla's:XBL 2.0 http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xbl/xbl2.html Attached are our comments/issues/questions for this Revision. Regards, Art Barstow Chair of the WAF WG --- [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/
