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

RE: tone of discussion regarding XForms/WF2

From: Francisco Monteiro <monterro2004@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 09:20:46 +0100
To: "'Mark Seaborne'" <m_seaborne@mac.com>, <public-appformats@w3.org>, "'www-forms'" <www-forms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002e01c6cffb$062b9be0$0500a8c0@computername>
 > If XForms is "harvesting" stuff from WF2, what's in it for WF2?>

Thanks Mark saved me an email, I was going to write something similar.

I think the whole debate should switch to W3C compound document and how best
to achieve this.
As I previously mentioned there is room for more then 1 technology here but
there should be no duplicate in authoring Web applications options.

My position on how I see XForms is well known in this group!


-----Original Message-----
From: www-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Mark Seaborne
Sent: 04 September 2006 08:51
To: public-appformats@w3.org; www-forms
Subject: tone of discussion regarding XForms/WF2

>> Moreover, with the appendix C guidelines for XHTML combined with 
>> making the important ease-of-authoring changes to XForms that
>> *are* what we need to harvest from WF2
> If XForms is "harvesting" stuff from WF2, what's in it for WF2?

Come on now people, the W3C is _not_ a school playground! Play nicely
together. As one of the poor form authors stuck in the middle here I don't
care whether the W3C Forms markup language is called XForm, YForms, Web
Forms or Fly Trap Forms. I do however ask that people try to work together
in an atmosphere of helpful co-operation and mutual respect, even when they
happen to be in violent disagreement.

I welcome technical debate, but does it have to be couched in such
unfriendly language? You all want to achieve the same things for Web authors
and users; you all agree on many of the things that need to be done to get
there (at least so it seems). The WF2 people agree that there is good stuff
in XForms and the XForms WG has agreed that there is good stuff in WF2.

So rather than "What's in it for WF2?", the questions I would like you to
ask are:
1. "Can XForms and WF2 be combined into a single spec to the benefit of the
Web?" I think that is the gist of IBM's statement. To which I really hope
the answer will be "Yes."

2. "If the answer to question 1 is 'yes', then is there any value in XForms
and WF2 continuing to exist independently of each other?" It would be nice
if everyone was happy to answer that one with a "No".

Of course you might end up thinking that bringing the two together is a
completely broken idea, in which case please just say so, nicely.  
However, I hope that everyone is open-minded enough not to have that as
their opening position.

Please also bear in mind that if the W3C continues down the current track
and ends up promoting two approaches to authoring Web applications it will
receive no thanks from users. Perhaps a good start would be to have just one
working group co-ordinating work on Web forms, rather than the two we have
just now (someone made a silly mistake there didn't they!).

All the best


Received on Monday, 4 September 2006 08:32:47 UTC

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