W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > April 2008

Re: XForms Simplified Forms Syntax Review Needed

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:54:48 -0700
Cc: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>, public-forms-tf@w3.org, Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org> (new)
Message-Id: <7044082C-8A14-402C-A405-EA2F5A1C05CF@apple.com>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>


On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:29 PM, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:

> aloha, fellow forms task force members!
>
> maciej wrote, quote:
>> (Fellow Forms TF members, I think it's time we come up with a
>> draft of  the guidelines so we can satisfy our obligations to
>> the Forms WG and  HTML WG.)
> unquote
>
> i believe that it is high time that the Forms and HTML working groups
> reconsidered the joint forms task force and its goals, with an eye
> towards dissolving the old task force and its charter, and drafting a
> new one; we have been going nowhere at no particular speed, and it is
> in everyone's best interest to consider not merely "guidelines" but
> specific proposals -- as long as the HTML5 draft has a ToDo where the
> "Forms" section should be, there will be very little progress on this
> front, unless we re-examine the joint task force's purview...

I am in favor of dissolving the Forms Task Force, since so far we have  
produced anything of value. However, I have felt reluctant to propose  
this, since I have been part of the problem (have not really done  
anything myself).

I would be against chartering a Task Force to create a new set of  
elements and associated semantics to add to HTML. That is the job of  
the HTML WG. I would also be against chartering a Task Force to create  
a new syntax for XForms. That is the job of the Forms WG.

 From my superficial perusal of John's proposal, it does not appear to  
me that it would satisfy the HTML WG's Design Principles as written.  
Perhaps it will be improved such that it does. It also seems pretty  
incomplete, for example, what exactly is the language used in the  
"calculate" attribute,  But I would be against using a Task Force to  
bypass review by and input from the full HTML Working Group.

> if that is not acceptable to my fellow joint task force members, then
> i suggest that the joint task force as currently constituted be
> dissolved by mutual consent of the chairs of both working groups, and
> that it be replaced with a task force that will produce more tangible
> deliverables...  when i am asked about the gaping hole in the HTML5
> draft where forms should be addressed, i'm not being queried as to
> what theoretically might one day appear there, but specifically what
> WILL appear there...

The primary proposal on the table is Web Forms 2.0, an extension to  
HTML4 Forms that appears to satisfy the design principles. Currently  
its integration is blocked by waiting on the Forms TF to complete its  
work. I do not think creating a new TF with a broader scope would  
reduce this delay.

> i proposed at our first (and so far only) telecon that we examine
> dave raggett's XForms Transitional, but that suggestion went over
> like the proverbial lead ballon...  we must, as a task force and
> as members of our respective groups, reconsider our approach to
> forms in HTML5 and XHTML and either be chartered/tasked with providing
> concrete proposals, or we should remove HTML5 from TR space as a
> working draft, for how can one write a specification for the web that
> does not address forms, given the fact that i am using one to compose
> this, use them every day to post to wikis, and to conduct ecommerce?

I think the right thing to do is to integrate Web Forms 2 integrate  
the HTML5 spec immediately. If a better proposal comes along then it  
should be entertained.  But we have a complete and detailed proposal  
in hand, which the HTML WG has already voted to adopt. Right now it is  
waiting on the Forms TF. I would like to complete the HTML WG's  
resolution to adopt Web Forms 2 and take any proposals for changes  
under review in the normal way.

Let us remove the Forms TF as a blocker to progress.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 21:04:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:47 UTC