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

RE: IBM Position Statement on XForms and Web Forms 2.0

From: Kugelman, John <jkugelman@progeny.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:15:04 -0400
Message-ID: <9A0E40933DE3E548A1B8E32063CE4EE482B551@es3.progeny.net>
To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: <public-appformats@w3.org>, <www-forms@w3.org>

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> John Boyer wrote:
> >
> > 4) When you say "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."
> > 
> > I believe you are continuing to mislead, as XForms can also be 
> > implemented in JS only (there is such an implementation).
>
> But for such an implementation to function in IE, it needs to be
served 
> as text/html, which, as I have already stated, is not appropriate! 
> Using such a script in browsers that actually support XHTML, however,
is 
> fine.

Why is it not appropriate? What does "appropriate" mean?

FormFaces provides XForms functionality in Mozilla and Internet
Explorer. In Mozilla you could serve your page as text/html or
application/xhtml+xml, whichever. In Internet Explorer you can only use
text/html. That doesn't stop FormFaces from loading and rendering the
page.

Actually FormFaces parses the page with an XML parser, and it will barf
if the document is not well-formed XML. Even if you use text/html. It
acts like a strict XML parser even if the browser is in tag soup mode.
Received on Friday, 1 September 2006 18:15:39 GMT

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