W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > April 2007

Re: [XBL Primer] new scenarios

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:37:44 -0700
To: "Marcos Caceres" <m.caceres@qut.edu.au>
Cc: "Josť Manuel Cantera Fonseca" <jmcf@tid.es>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>, public-appformats-request@w3.org, www-html@w3.org, Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com, connolly@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, public-forms@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF4E4B6FFD.F5FEDAC8-ON882572C0.007F80E7-882572C0.0081CE3E@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Marcos,

Actually, it is exactly the plan to formulate an XForms transitional tag 
set that can be used in XHTML as XML and to have the same tagset and 
overall design also be available to tag soup HTML.  HTML5 is really 
supposed to be [X]HTML5, if you take my meaning.

Please see the vision document that accompanied the working group 
charters: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/html-forms-vision.html.  Based on 
this, I am sure I don't know what you mean when you claim that XForms is 
incompatible with the web. 

The working groups are chartered by the W3C to do these things, not to do 
whatever they want with no regard for the charters and their intent as 
expressed by the director and the W3C management team.

But wait, there's more.  If you read the Forms WG charter 
(http://www.w3.org/2007/03/forms-charter.html), it does call out the fact 
that the group is compelled by charter to seek common ground with Web 
Forms 2 where it makes sense to do so.  A lot of good work has gone into 
WF2, and we want to harvest that into XForms transitional. 

Better still, the new HTML is also chartered 
(http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter) to develop the HTML Forms 
technology via a joint task force with the Forms WG.  In other words, both 
groups are cross-compelled to work with one another collegially and 
cooperatively to solve the forms problem together rather than diverging 
off into separate technical directions.

And with the amount of mail being generated in the new HTML group, I can 
only guess there is enough spare bandwidth to really make a positive 
difference in the world by making this work.  To be absolutely clear, 
XForms transitional is something new for people to work on.  It is not set 
in stone.  There has been some work on it so far, which has included 
adoption of ideas and tags from Web Forms 2 as well as from XForms. XForms 
transitional is the XML serialization of the overall W3C forms technology. 
 There's still lots of design work to do and ways to get involved and 
contribute.

Best regards,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





"Marcos Caceres" <m.caceres@qut.edu.au> 
Sent by: public-appformats-request@w3.org
04/17/2007 03:00 PM

To
"Josť Manuel Cantera Fonseca" <jmcf@tid.es>
cc
"WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
Subject
Re: [XBL Primer] new scenarios







Hi Jose,
On 4/16/07, Josť Manuel Cantera Fonseca <jmcf@tid.es> wrote:
> + You talk about Web Forms 2. As far as I know it is not clear that Web
> Forms 2 is something to be adopted by W3C. The Forms Task Force is
> working on XFORMS Transitional [1]. I think the example should avoid
> using any Web Forms 2 syntax.

AFAIK, the HTML working group will be working on Web Forms 2.0 so
there probably more chance of it becoming a part of HTML5 (and
actually being implemented into browsers). Seems illogical to me to
have transitional technology to something that will be incompatible
with the web (XForms).

> + You talk about HTML 5. The former comment also applies here. At the
> moment it is not clear if the W3C is going to adopt the WHATWG proposal
> or not. So, IMHO, the examples should be neutral and be built upon HTML
> 4.01 or XHTML 1.1.

You are right, at this point HTML 5 has not been adopted. However, we
expect it will be adopted in the next week or so. Given that HTML 5 is
backwards compatible with HTML4.01 I don't see it as a big problem.
Also, also I'm fairly sure XHTML5 will be backwards compatible with
XHTML1.0 so no harm is done.

> + Example 4 is something within the domain of a content adaptation tool
> and not in the domain of XBL. This comment may be applied to other
> examples, I think the Primer should not create confusion in authors and
> lead them to think that XBL is something intended to avoid the usage of
> a content adaptation platform.

XBL is a real-time content adaptation tool. In fact, it's seems to me
way more flexible and easier to use than something like XSLT. I think
most developers would want content adaptation based on media queries
or user input without having to defer processing to a content
adaptation platform.

> + I miss an example devoted to the extension of an existing UI
> component. IMHO, this is an important application of XBL, IMHO even more
> important that the content adaptation applications you are suggesting.

Scenario 2 will cover this.

> Thanks and best wishes
Thanks!

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:40:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:22 GMT