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

My position on Web Forms 2.0 and the future of XForms

From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 07:12:14 -0400
Message-ID: <44F8158D.7050103@earthlink.net>
To: public-appformats@w3.org

   First, let me point out the following:

1) HTML is not going away in the immediate future. (In fact, I believe
Microsoft has stated that they won't be adding support for XHTML to
Internet Explorer.)

2) Web Forms 2.0 will likely be implemented on most if not all major
browsers within a few of years. (In fact, Opera already has at least
some support, and Mozilla has already begun implementation.)

3) It has been stated that there are some conceptual conflicts between
Web Forms 2.0 and XForms. (Examples of this would be appreciated.)

4) It is acknowledged that XForms, in its current form, is too difficult
for the average web author to use.

   Based on the above points, I'd like to suggest the following:

1) We eliminate as many conceptual conflicts as possible between WF2 and

2) WF2 will still be an extension of HTML and will still be a module for

3) The next generation of XForms would allow WF2 markup to be converted
into XForms markup simply by changing the namespace. Thus, WF2 would
essentially be a subset of the next generation of XForms that would
exist in both the XHTML and XForms namespaces.

   This approach has the following advantages:

1) The features of WF2 would be implemented in browsers in a much
shorter timeframe.

2) DHTML implementations of the current XForms would need less code and
would run faster when built on top of WF2.

3) Server-based XForms implementations would benefit from WF2 as well.

4) Migration to the next version of XForms would be relatively smooth.

   The general idea is to allow both integration of WF2 into XForms, but
also allow it to reach recommendation status as swiftly as possible. If
conceptual conflicts aren't significant, the working draft can simply be
changed to resolve the conflicts and the spec can proceed to CR.
Received on Friday, 1 September 2006 11:13:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:50:05 UTC