Remember that XML Events and XForms are part of XHTML 2 - so behaviors 
are native to the language.  Its fine to talk about semantics vs. 
behavior vs. presentation - we do it all the time in the HTML Working 
Group.  But don't forget that the whole idea of XML Events was to allow 
embedding behavior *without scripting*.  Exposing the DOM and DOM events 
into the document space makes it pretty easy to do a lot of things that 
today require scripting.  You can debate about whether that's a good 
idea or not, but...  that's the direction the language is going.

John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:

>Orion Adrian wrote:
>  
>
>>We're bound to get at least a few differing opinions here, but this is
>>where I stand. If HTML doesn't allow for any specificity of behavior,
>>where is this to be specified? It's nice to be able to say, "not my
>>problem", but we do have to take this into consideration. Whose
>>problem is it? 
>>    
>>
>
>Scripting.  
>
>XHTML 2 - semantic logic
>Scripting (JS?) - behaviour
>CSS - presentation
>
>Yes? No? Maybe?
>
>If currently scripting/DOM manipulation is lacking, should that be XHTML's
>problem any more than it is CSS's problem?
>
>If you insist on using behavioural HTML, use an older doc type that allow
>this: remember that HTML 4.01 is perfectly stable and usable for 99% of
>current web sites/applications out there today.
>
>JF
>--
>John Foliot  foliot@wats.ca
>Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
>Web Accessibility Testing and Services
>http://www.wats.ca    
>Phone: 1-613-482-7053
>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com