W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > July 2007

Re: charter all set now?

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 16:06:57 +0100
Message-ID: <640dd5060707040806sfcbcfc5j6284aae9d54887f1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
Cc: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, boyerj@ca.ibm.com, public-forms@w3.org

Hello all,

No doubt everyone will think I'm saying this because we are authors of
formsPlayer, a plug-in for IE...but I'm not. :)

I'm not following either the logic behind this line of reasoning, or
what is motivating it. We are working on plug-ins for IE _and_
extensions for Firefox I can certainly say that there is little
technological difference; both are 'browser extensions' which are not
part of the core browser code.

But I guess you might want to point out that a Firefox extension
created by Mozilla (the XForms extension) has a different status to an
IE extension created by someone other than Microsoft (formsPlayer).
Other than that there is little more that you can say about browser



On 04/07/07, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2007, 12:08:04 AM, T.V wrote:
> TVR> Note that in today's browsers, there is a significant difference
> TVR> between "extension" and "plugin". Specifically, XForms for
> TVR> Firefox is an extension, *not* a plugin
> Yes, thats true and should be noted. An extension is closer to native support than a plugin.
> TVR> Chris Lilley writes:
>  >> On Wednesday, June 27, 2007, 8:44:10 PM, John wrote:
>  >> JB> There is only one diff-marked section that jumped out as really
>  >> JB> different from what the Forms WG otherwise understands as its
>  >> JB> mission, as expressed in charter mission statement.
>  >> JB>
>  >> JB> The mission statement seems to more accurately reflect our
>  >> JB> understanding, which is that it is the Forms WG mission to
>  >> JB> *develop* specifications that cover forms on the Web.
>  >> JB>
>  >> JB> Yet the description of the dependency between the Forms WG and the
>  >> JB> HTML WG says:
>  >> JB>
>  >> JB> "The Forms WG will work with the HTML WG to ensure that XForms
>  >> JB> Transitional processors will accept the HTML Forms developed by
>  >> JB> the HTML Working Group."
>  >> JB>
>  >> JB> The last part 'developed by the HTML working group' is
>  >> JB> problematic because it is the mission of the Forms WG to develop
>  >> JB> forms on the web, accounting via the joint task force for the
>  >> JB> forms requirements foreseen by the HTML WG.
>  >> JB>
>  >> JB> Despite this one case, I would say that my experience so far with
>  >> JB> the HTML WG suggests that their own opinions about how forms for
>  >> JB> the web are to be developed stems mostly from the fact that they
>  >> JB> do not feel bound by any statements expressed in a charter other
>  >> JB> than their own, despite the fact that you originally wrote them
>  >> JB> together.  They have expressed this directly, so this means that
>  >> JB> any statements of clarification would need to appear in both
>  >> JB> charters, not just the forms charter.
>  >> The html charter says
>  >>   The HTML WG and the Forms Working Group will work together in this
>  >>   Task Force to ensure that the new HTML forms and the new XForms
>  >>   Transitional have architectural consistency and that document
>  >>   authors can transition between them
>  >> so it seems that the existing charter already covers this. I discussed
>  >> this with the comm team and they said that the existing language
>  >> appeared to cover it.
>  >> JB> For example, there is a lot of confusion about the meaning of
>  >> JB> 'architectural consistency' and when I point to the key examples
>  >> JB> you give in the Forms WG charter, such as the expectation of
>  >> JB> "conversion from tag soup to *equivalent* XHTML serialization" or
>  >> JB> "following design principles such as separation of presentation
>  >> JB> from content", the response I get is that these are expressed in
>  >> JB> the forms charter so they are not binding on the HTML WG.
>  >> JB> That sounds an awful lot like the HTML WG feels it is the HTML
>  >> JB> WG's mission to develop specifications that cover forms on the
>  >> JB> web, which of course undercuts the Forms WG mission and
>  >> JB> discourages motivation for Forms WG members to participate in any
>  >> JB> kind of joint task force (despite my best efforts to encourage otherwise).
>  >> JB> I think it would be fair to rephrase "but relatively little
>  >> JB> traction in the mainstream, browser sector" to something more
>  >> JB> accurate, such as "despite having only indirect support from
>  >> JB> features available in modern web browsers."
>  >> We agree with that and have added similar wording (explicit mention of
>  >> plugins).
>  >> --
>  >>  Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
>  >>  Interaction Domain Leader
>  >>  Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
>  >>  W3C Graphics Activity Lead
>  >>  Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
> --
>  Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
>  Interaction Domain Leader
>  Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
>  W3C Graphics Activity Lead
>  Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 15:07:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:52 UTC