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

Re: A rose by any other name...

From: Kenneth Sklander <kenneth@sklander.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:22:00 +0100
Message-Id: <1DA664E7-4024-4652-88A9-CDCD3B130545@sklander.net>
To: "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>
I agree with that it would be a good idea to have a name that  
reflects the other usages asides from form filling. But we also need  
to bare the legacy in mind, so sebastians proposal (xforms 1.1:  
XYZ :) ) seems like a very good idea as we keep the legacy and  
broaden the name... Ofcourse we need a good name for the "XYZ" part :)

-kenneth
On 25/01/2008, at 1.35, John Boyer wrote:

>
> 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 15:22:17 UTC

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