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

Re: A rose by any other name...

From: Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer <sebastian@dreamlab.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:30:24 +0400
Message-ID: <4799C850.8010401@dreamlab.net>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
CC: Charles F Wiecha <wiecha@us.ibm.com>, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>, new Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>, public-forms-request@w3.org

Maybe my previous was too long and unclear, I proposed
an additional (sub)name for the next version number:

"XForms 1.1: XYZ"

Keep XForms - add something to it thats a bit broader.

Names do matter, after all.

- Sebastian

Mark Birbeck schrieb:
> Hello all,
> 
> With respect to everyone on this, the 'naming' discussion always seems
> to come up in a context where people wish some 'x' was more
> successful, and assume that it will be if they change the name.
> 
> Yet some of the most well known items have names that by this logic
> should simply not work; renting a DVD? Downloaded some MP3s? Does your
> computer have a 486? (Ok, that one is dated...but non-technical people
> really used to talk about having a 486.) And don't even think about
> phones; you've surely heard people talking about getting a 6500 or a
> 5610.
> 
> So let's not kid ourselves that the name really means anything. (Which
> is how I've always interpreted Shakespeare's point about roses -- that
> what we call something is irrelevant, it's its nature that matters.)
> 
> But perhaps the biggest argument against a name change is the legacy
> one. Over the last few years we've built up tutorials, samples, blog
> posts, implementations, tools, and so on, based on the name 'XForms'.
> And we all know that recently Yahoo! announced that XForms was the
> inspiration for the latest release of its mobile platform.
> 
> So, just as interest is growing, do we now want to change the name?
> 
> There are lots of things that need to be done to speed up adoption,
> but I think the name  of the technology is the least of our problems.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> On 25/01/2008, Charles F Wiecha <wiecha@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Well...this broader vision for XForms is certainly why I joined the WG, and
>> have been interested in the "Backplane" ideas for some time.  Indeed the
>> phrase Backplane is intended to imply the broader applicability of
>> "components" such as submission, data model, validation, MVC binding and
>> events to broader web applications -- in a variety of host languages and
>> platforms just as XForms applies to those cases as well.
>>
>> In my own work, apart from the WG, I've often been asked why I keep so
>> focused on "forms" when the web is so much broader.  I spend a lot of
>> effort explaining how the above ideas have incubated in forms but are in
>> fact part of the deeper web stack.  I'm getting pretty tired of this and
>> frankly it's starting to be a handicap so I'd welcome some help in a name
>> change here :}
>>
>> Thanks, Charlie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>          A rose by any other name...
>>
>>
>>          John Boyer
>>                    to:
>>                      Forms WG (new)
>>                                                                 01/24/08 07:36 PM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>          Sent by:
>>                public-forms-request@w3.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In some ways it's too bad that the need for dynamic, interactive XML
>> applications arose first in the web forms space.
>>
>> One reason is that we called it XForms, and it has always been a challenge
>> to get people excited about forms.  They have too many pre-conceived
>> notions about the uses and limitations of forms technology based on their
>> prior experiences with older technologies for delivering forms.  Whether
>> purely instantiated with paper, or whether it's a print and fill or even a
>> fill and print system, or an old html form, the dynamism of what we do
>> today seems to me qualitatively different than what is done with those
>> other technologies.
>>
>> It's a little like comparing a bicycle and a car on the basis that both
>> involve the use of wheels to get you from point A to point B.  Bit of a
>> stretch, don't you think?
>>
>> Similarly, calling our dynamic interactive XML applications "XForms"
>> because forms collect data is also a bit of a stretch.  The word "form"
>> just doesn't evoke the full measure of business process enablement of which
>> so-called "XForms" are capable.  Whether you ascribe to the more ephemeral
>> view in which an XForm serves as the intelligent front-end face of the
>> business process, or whether you subscribe to the philosophy of the
>> intelligent document as the fundamental unit of information interchange in
>> a business process, the simple fact remains that calling our information
>> processing assets "forms" is about as informative as trying to sell
>> "plants" when you mean to sell roses.  The rose does smell just as sweet no
>> matter what you call it, but if you call it a plant, you won't attract as
>> many customers.
>>
>> So, isn't it time for the name XForms (plant) to be changed to something
>> more reflective of what XForms is (a rose)?
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 14:29:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:46 UTC