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

Re: tone of discussion regarding XForms/WF2

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 22:13:44 +0300
Message-Id: <ADA171A9-FD69-4173-9CDF-414290BE5C77@iki.fi>
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org, www-forms <www-forms@w3.org>
To: Mark Seaborne <m_seaborne@mac.com>

On Sep 4, 2006, at 10:51, Mark Seaborne wrote:

>>> 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!

> So rather than "What's in it for WF2?"

I apologize for my ill-formulated phrasing.

There *is* a technical point there, though:

> 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."

It depends greatly on whether such unified spec omits features that  
already exist in XForms. However, removing features is unlikely. A  
significant part of the value proposition of WF2 is that it is  
simpler than XForms. I fail to see how a union of XForms and WF2  
could be simpler than either individually.

So to rephrase the question:
How could the unification be accomplished without defeating a  
significant part of the essence and value proposition of WF2?

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 4 September 2006 19:14:05 GMT

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