Re: XForms Simplified Forms Syntax Review Needed

Hi Anne,

Yes, I know it is not a spec.  It is a pretty good work up of a user 
scenario in which the XForms MVC architecture can be successfully 
flattened to an "on the glass" expression that is more amenable to web 
authors.

The problem here is that we get beat up if we come to you with a completed 
spec in which you have had no say and we get beat up if we don't come with 
a completed spec.  How do we get past that conundrum?

I think that our "flattening" exercise has implied some really interesting 
things that we want to be able to say about a simplified syntax that can 
actually be mapped to the canonical XForms MVC architecture.  The TF needs 
to factor out what those are, and for things that are common with WF2, it 
would really help if we adhered to the software engineering principle of 
adopting the same name for the same thing. 

In places where prior versions of XForms have already shipped with a 
particular name, we would be grateful if WF2 could make a change in name 
(and in some cases semantic).  However, it should be clear from the 
incomplete work we have done so far that we are making every effort to 
adopt both names and practices that are commensurate with WF2 for the new 
features being added to XForms.  So, we're adding a lot of stuff just to 
make the integration work, and if you think this new stuff has to be 
different because of some desirable property of WF2, then the TF needs to 
come up with that.

But in the meantime, it doesn't make sense to claim that we're not allowed 
to talk about the actual vocabulary name and concomitantly say that you 
shouldn't look at this because you already have *done* WF2, which is 
1) exact on syntax
2) supposed to be a basis for review, not done

Thanks,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Staff Member
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
Blog RSS feed: 
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw





"Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> 
Sent by: public-forms-request@w3.org
04/03/2008 10:00 AM

To
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
cc
chris.wilson@microsoft.com, connolly@w3.org, "Michael(tm) Smith" 
<mike@w3.org>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, "Forms WG" 
<public-forms@w3.org>, public-forms-tf@w3.org, steven@w3.org
Subject
Re: XForms Simplified Forms Syntax Review Needed







On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:01:27 +0200, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> It remains unclear why that vote was taken since it preempts the
> collaborative work of the task force required in both WG charters.

It seems only fair that both WGs are allowed to work on proposals.


> Gregory can formally object at any point, and the HTML WG can reopen the
> issue at the discretion of the chairs if there is some new technical
> information, [...]

I was not debating that.


I'd be fine with reviewing the proposal from the Forms WG though I share 
Maciej's concerns. The proposal is very incomplete compared to Web Forms 
2.0 and I also wonder whether such work is in scope of this Task Force 
given the Task Force charter.

By the way, we'd still welcome a thorough review of Web Forms 2.0 by the 
Forms WG.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>