W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > August 2006

Re: IBM Position Statement on XForms and Web Forms 2.0

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:24:51 +0100
To: public-appformats@w3.org
Message-ID: <ed62s3$du6$1@sea.gmane.org>
Cc: www-forms@w3.org


"Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote in message 
news:44F66600.2050804@lachy.id.au...

> This is different from a client-side XForms plugin, like formsPlayer for 
> IE, which requires the user to install it before the page will function.
>  The approach taken by the WF2 script, however, does not require the user 
> to have installed some plugin locally, it will function as long as they 
> have JS enabled.

There are of course also many script only implementations of X-Forms, there 
is very much no difference between Web Forms and XForms in such support, so 
the above statement is simply untrue, both XForms and WF2 have script and 
plugin solutions to legacy browser compatibility, except the XForms ones are 
considerably more advanced currently.

> In fact, formsPlayer seems to add support for XForms in text/html 
> documents, which is obviously non-conformant, because text/html is not 
> XML!

Even I can't actually say that, and I want to, and it's unfortunate, but 
XHTML 1.0 can be served as text/html, so therefore text/html can be XML, of 
course that's bad, but it's a fact of life.

Jim. 
Received on Thursday, 31 August 2006 07:40:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:20 GMT