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

Re: Straw poll on name of "streamlined syntax" spec

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:19:02 -0800
To: Charles F Wiecha <wiecha@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, public-forms@w3.org, "Ulrich Nicolas Lissť" <unl@dreamlab.net>
Message-ID: <OFC6D4B535.CE883DE4-ON88257504.00603655-88257504.0064A0E3@ca.ibm.com>
Using XForms 1.2 for just the streamlined syntax by itself is tempting, 
though it would require either 

1) that we either merge the "XFormsA" material into the full spec, or

2) that we publish "XFormsA" as a separate module and also a rev of the 
full XForms spec that only makes the changes needed to support "XFormsA"

The latter of the above approaches has several advantages:

i) the "XFormsA" content is highlighted to the web community as a primer 
or on-ramp, rather than being lost in and amongst the full spec
ii) as a module, "XFormsA" may be viewed as a conformance profile (a bit 
like "Basic" except perhaps not a proper subset of full)
iii) as a module, implementers of XForms full could decide whether or not 
to implement, which has been important to some in the past.

Assuming the latter approach is preferable, it so happens we still need a 
name for the module, to distinguish it from the full spec. 

Note that we never really got off the ground with XForms 1.0 Basic 
because, quite frankly, it is so close in functionality to XForms full 
that it may as well be called a full implementation.  In fact, in 1.1, the 
conformance section already allows the 1.0 Basic limitations to be 
included in a "full" processor, so there is no future for XForms 1.0 
Basic.

On the other hand, it has been proposed in this thread that this new 
streamlined syntax might more reasonably be called "XForms Basic".  This 
has all the earmarks of what is typically known in our business as ... a 
good point.  It beats the name "XForms 1.2 Transitional" and it gets 
around the problem that the spec wants for both attributes and script 
functions.

So, the go-forward plan could be

"XForms 1.2" as a very small rev of XForms 1.1

"XForms 1.2 Basic" for the streamlined expression of data-rich web 
applications

John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications
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





From:
Charles F Wiecha <wiecha@us.ibm.com>
To:
"Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Cc:
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, public-forms@w3.org, 
public-forms-request@w3.org, "Ulrich Nicolas Lissť" <unl@dreamlab.net>
Date:
11/17/2008 07:34 AM
Subject:
Re: Straw poll on name of "streamlined syntax" spec



So how about making this just XForms 1.2 and pushing the other 1.2 stuff 
into 1.3 or 2.0...Charlie

Charles Wiecha
Manager, Multichannel Web Interaction
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
P.O. Box 704
Yorktown Heights, N.Y. 10598
Phone: (914) 784-6180, T/L 863-6180, Cell: (914) 320-2614
wiecha@us.ibm.com


"Mark Birbeck" ---11/17/2008 10:03:48 AM---Hi Uli, > I prefer XFormsA and 
oppose to FormsA


From:

"Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>

To:

"Ulrich Nicolas Lissť" <unl@dreamlab.net>

Cc:

"John Boyer" <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>, public-forms@w3.org

Date:

11/17/2008 10:03 AM

Subject:

Re: Straw poll on name of "streamlined syntax" spec

Sent by:

public-forms-request@w3.org




Hi Uli,

> I prefer XFormsA and oppose to FormsA
>
> Even more I'd prefer something like XForms Basic, but that's already in
> use for a profile. I find the uppercase "A" a bit awkward, but a
> lowercase "a" is even more awkward, and "-a" is expected to perform
> badly in terms of Google searches. Maybe XForms Compact could do the 
trick.

I agree with you 110%. :)

When we first started talking about this, I always saw the project as
more of an "XForms-lite", or "XForms Tiny" type thing. Those kinds of
names -- and your "XForms Compact" -- convey the sense of the spec
being an easy on-ramp, at the same time that it is part of the big,
happy, XForms, family.

If I had to pick a preference, I'd probably go for XForms-lite.

But I would also flag up the fact that we don't necessarily need a new
name at all.

This is because most web developers have not even heard of XForms. So
creating a new document that describes a set of 'on-ramp' features,
does not necessarily require us to come up with a new name for this
spec. In fact, this new spec could just be an XForms Primer, or some
such, that prioritises the on-ramp features in the interests of
gaining wider interest in XForms amongst web developers and the Ajax
community.

Regards,

Mark

-- 
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com

http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck

webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)






picture
(image/gif attachment: 01-part)

picture
(image/gif attachment: 02-part)

picture
(image/gif attachment: 03-part)

picture
(image/gif attachment: 04-part)

picture
(image/gif attachment: 05-part)

picture
(image/gif attachment: 06-part)

picture
(image/gif attachment: 07-part)

picture
(image/gif attachment: 08-part)

picture
(image/gif attachment: 09-part)

picture
(image/gif attachment: 10-part)

picture
(image/gif attachment: 11-part)

picture
(image/gif attachment: 12-part)

picture
(image/gif attachment: 13-part)

Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 18:21:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:49 UTC