Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "ext Ian B. Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: March 16, 2007 11:05:46 AM EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: XML Binding Language (XBL) 2.0 is a Candidate
Recommendation (Call for Implementations)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Advisory Committee Representative,
I am pleased to announce that XML Binding Language (XBL) 2.0 is a
W3C Candidate Recommendation.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-xbl-20070316/
This document is published by the Web Application Formats
Working Group:
http://www.w3.org/2006/appformats/
The approval and publication is in response to the following
transition request:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2007JanMar/0080
There were two Formal Objections. Despite these, the Director
supports publishing the XBL2 specification as a Candidate
Recommendation; see the full discussion below.
This specification will remain at the Candidate Recommendation
stage until two complete and interoperable implementations exist
(and not before 1 September 2007), as described in the document
status section below. There is no initial implementation report.
For information about any patent disclosures regarding this
specification, see:
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/38483/status
This Call for Implementations follows section 7.4.3 of the W3C
Process Document:
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi
Thank you,
For Tim Berners-Lee, Director,
Chris Lilley, Interaction Domain Leader, and
Dean Jackson, Rich Web Client Activity Activity Lead;
Ian Jacobs, Head of W3C Communications
======================
Disposition of Comments
======================
The Director approves the transition of XBL2 to Candidate
Recommendation. This decision acknowledges XBL2 does not align
with some existing W3C technologies. The Director sees a
significant community behind XBL2, and believes there is value in
continuing the development of this technology within W3C. We must
provide the opportunity for multiple approaches to be developed
within the Consortium, in the way that specifications such as
CSS, XSL, XML Schema and RDF Schema were made W3C Recommendations
despite overlaps and incompatibilities. Unfortunately this means
that there were a number of comments made on XBL2 that were
rejected as being out of scope even though they were consistent
with other technologies at W3C. These comments did not go
unnoticed. We hope that many of these disagreements can be tested
and resolved with implementation experience gained during the
Candidate Recommendation phase.
The Formal Objections" and "rejections with strong disagreement"
from the following disposition of comments were examined; see
the disposition of Last Call comments for details:
http://www.w3.org/2007/03/doc
With regard to issue 45 concerning the need for an Internet media
type for XBL, the Director tentatively agrees that there is no
compelling need at this time, but requests that the issue be
revisited if a more concrete need for one becomes evident.
In response to issue 86 regarding the abstract, the following
change was made during the transition teleconference and it is
hoped that this addresses the concern raised:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/xbl2/Overview.html.diff?
r1=text&tr1=1.193&r2=text&tr2=1.192&f=h
Regarding issue 87 and the ability for XBL to affect a document's
intrinsic meaning, the Director requests that the XBL community
and Doug Schepers in particular discuss eventually replacing this
text:
"XBL cannot be used to give a document new semantics. The
meaning of a document is not changed by any bindings that are
associated with it, only its presentation and interactive
behavior."
with this text:
"XBL cannot be used to override the meaning of a document as
defined by the spec of the language it is written in. Any
bindings that are associated with it add information about
its presentation and interactive behavior, and these have to
be consistent with the original interpretation of the
document."
or by a normative paragraph (not a note, replacing "have to" by
"should"):
"XBL cannot be used to override the meaning of a document as
defined by the spec of the language it is written in. Any
bindings that are associated with it add information about
its presentation and interactive behavior, and these should
be consistent with the original interpretation of the
document."
The Director agrees with the current intent of the specification,
however, and does not think that the paragraph should be removed;
nor does the Director think that this change should further delay
XBL2's progression to Candidate Recommendation.
Issue 153 remains a difficult issue with two conflicting
requirements. The Director suggests that the XBL community
specifically request feedback from implementors and authors
during the CR phase, and requests that it be made clear that this
design could change pending implementation experience.
Finally, for issues 9 and 163 regarding xml:id, the Director
supports the decision to not use xml:id, because of the position
expressed by certain browser vendors that requirements to support
xml:id would be ignored. However, the Director requests that
during the Candidate Recommendation phase that the XBL community
solicit feedback from authors and implementors on whether XBL
should rely exclusively on xml:id instead of having its own "id"
attribute. Further, the Director suggests that the XML
Coordination Group should discuss xml:id with browser vendors to
see if their reluctance can be addressed, e.g. by more clearly
defining the rules for the handling of elements with multiple
declared IDs.
For the full list changes since Last Call, see:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/xbl2/
============================================
Quoting from
XML Binding Language (XBL) 2.0
W3C Candidate Recommendation - 16 March 2007
============================================
This Version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-xbl-20070316/
Latest Version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/
Previous Versions:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xbl-20070117/
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xbl-20060907/
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xbl-20060619/
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xbl/xbl.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-xbl-20010223/
Editor:
Ian Hickson, Google, Inc.
Abstract
The XML Binding Language (XBL) describes the ability to
associate elements in a document with script, event handlers,
CSS, and more complex content models, which can be stored in
another document. This can be used to re-order and wrap
content so that, for instance, simple HTML or XHTML markup can
have complex CSS styles applied without requiring that the
markup be polluted with multiple semantically neutral div
elements.
It can also be used to implement new DOM interfaces, and, in
conjunction with other specifications, enables arbitrary tag
sets to be implemented as widgets. For example, XBL could be
used to implement the form controls in XForms or HTML.
Status of this document [ Non-boilerplate ]
This is the 16 March 2007 Candidate Recommendation of XBL
2.0. Implementations are encouraged. This specification will
remain at the Candidate Recommendation stage until two
complete and interoperable implementations exist (and not
before 1 September 2007). An implementation will only be
considered if it is publicly downloadable or available through
some other public point of sale mechanism, and is intended for
a wide audience and could be used on a daily basis. To be
"complete and interoperable", an implementation must pass
every test in a comprehensive test suite of every normative
requirement of this specification.
Publication as a Candidate Recommendation does not imply
endorsement by the W3C Membership. At the time of publication,
there was no implementation report. A future version of this
specification, which will include fixes based on
implementation feedback, will include a link to a test suite
and an implementation report.
If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please
send them to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (subscribe, archives) or
[email protected] (subscribe, archives). All feedback
is welcome. The editor guarantees that all feedback sent to
the above lists will receive responses before this
specification advances to the next stage of the W3C process.
The editor's copy of this specification is available in W3C
CVS. A detailed list of changes is available from the CVS
server.
This specification is a (non-backwards-compatible) revision of
Mozilla's XBL 1.0 language, originally developed at Netscape
in 2000, and originally implemented in the Gecko rendering
engine. [XBL10]
This specification was developed by the Mozilla Foundation and
its contributors, in conjunction with individuals from Opera
Software ASA, Google, Inc, and Apple Computer, Inc, to address
problems found in the original language and to allow for
implementation in a broader range of Web browsers.
This document is also based, in part, on work done in the
W3C's Bindings Task Force. However, no text from that
collaboration, other than that written by the aforementioned
contributors, remains in this specification. Inspiration was
similarly taken from other efforts, such as HTML
Components. [HTC]
Although they have had related histories, this specification
is separate from the W3C's "sXBL" drafts, and is not
compatible with them. (The two efforts use different
namespaces, for one.)
While the body of this specification was created outside the
W3C, the W3C Web Application Formats Working Group is now
guiding this specification along the W3C Recommendation track.
This document was produced by a group operating under the 5
February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list
of any patent disclosures made in connection with the
deliverables of the group; that page also includes
instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has
actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes
contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in
accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy. Feedback
requests
While feedback is welcomed on all aspects of this
specification, especially from implementors and authors using
XBL on the Web, feedback is especially requested on two
contentious issues.
The first concerns ID attributes. This specification defines
an attribute id for uniquely identifying elements in
XBL. There exists a specification for a global xml:id
attribute, which can also be used with XBL. Feedback is
requested from implementors and authors using XBL on the Web
regarding whether XBL should instead require that authors use
the xml:id attribute, and forbid the use of the id attribute
on XBL elements.
The second contentious issue regards an intentional
limitation: unless an element is explicitly bound to a binding
that provides access to its shadow tree or its bound element,
there is no easy way to get access to them from script running
outside the element's bindings. This is a feature that may be
introduced in a future version, but it is not clear how much
need there is for it.
If you have any opinions or experience regarding these issues
or any others, please send them to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(subscribe, archives) or [email protected] (subscribe,
archives).
--
Ian Jacobs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
