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

Naming the forms/attribute technology [was Re: Discussion points for "Forms-A"]

From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:30:52 -0700
Message-ID: <18699.20188.272343.657570@retriever.corp.google.com>
To: mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com
Cc: boyerj@ca.ibm.com, public-forms@w3.org

Mostly concur with everything you say, just dont call it AXForms.

I was the one who recommended against the name webforms at the
F2F,  and I stand by that reasoning. XFormsA would work if you
want to keep the XForms name and attach an A as a suffix sans hyphen

Mark Birbeck writes:
 > 
 > Hi John,
 > 
 > > 1) In the last 10 minutes of the face-to-face, the issue of the name
 > > "WebForms-A", versus "Forms-A", was raised.  Discretion being the better
 > > part of valor, I Iet the matter go at the time because we had the imminent
 > > possibility of exposure of the document at the tech plenary, and some
 > > concern expressed about the name possibly vexing certain parties.  However,
 > > I do still want to circle back to having a discussion about that name
 > > because I think it is a mistake to call it anything other than WebForms-A.
 > >
 > > The W3C is that organization whose mission is to "lead the *web* to its full
 > > potential".
 > >
 > > We are the Forms working group *within the W3C*.
 > >
 > > Our mission is to define the "next generation of forms *for the web*".
 > >
 > > I do not believe it is belligerent or provocative to call our work what it
 > > is.  WebForms-A is a way to impart next generation forms functionality to
 > > web pages with an attribute decoration methodology.  I think we are overly
 > > worried about vexing others who, on the one hand have not shown us the same
 > > consideration, and who on the other hand will have every reason to absorb
 > > our work on "WebForms-A" into the HTML/Forms task force and use it as the
 > > next generation of what is currently called "WebForms 2.0".
 > >
 > > Put another way, if there is going to be a mending of the rift at all, it is
 > > probably going to get called WebForms-A anyway.  We *have* to drive adoption
 > > of our technology, and calling it other than "WebForms-A" goes beyond issues
 > > of appeasement and nice-guys-finish-last and right down to just being a
 > > suboptimal marketing decision for our wares in the real world.
 > 
 > I wasn't on the telecon when the name WebForms-A was chosen, but on
 > reading the minutes I have to say I was disappointed. I felt that the
 > name unnecessarily referenced WebForms, and I also felt that too many
 > different 'axis' were being addressed at the same time.
 > 
 > To explain what I mean, we already have RDFa at the W3C, which is a
 > way to mark up RDF in documents, using merely attributes. The
 > 'attribute technique' that we are discussing within the XForms WG is
 > very much part of this general approach.
 > 
 > So the first thing I was thinking is, would not a suffix of 'a' be
 > better than '-A'?
 > 
 > Even if you don't buy my argument for consistency, there is a more
 > practical reason; we used to call RDFa by the name of RDF/A, but found
 > that this wasn't very friendly to Google. The problem is that although
 > Google will correctly find documents that contain "RDF/A", it will
 > also return documents that contain "I like RDF. A day in the life."
 > and "RDF: A standard for metadata." If we use the name "WebForms-A",
 > we're going to suffer exactly the same fate.
 > 
 > Next, given that the convention we have here is to take some existing
 > technology and 'attributise' it, then my preference would be to stick
 > with XForms (it's quite a cool name, after all) and just add 'a'.
 > Unfortunately, the lower-case letter on the end gets lost, so I don't
 > know what to suggest there. Maybe it becomes XFa, or maybe it's
 > XFormsA.
 > 
 > Anyway, my key points are:
 > 
 >   * whatever we call it, we need to lose the hyphen, because it's non-search
 >     engine friendly;
 > 
 >   * I'd prefer to see "WebForms" taken out of the name, since it implies a
 >     lineage that simply doesn't exist;
 > 
 >   * I like the name XForms, and think we should try to build on it, in some
 >     way. After all, what we are talking about is essentially another version
 >     of XForms, not something completely new.
 > 
 > 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)

-- 
Best Regards,
--raman

Title:  Research Scientist      
Email:  raman@google.com
WWW:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/
Google: tv+raman 
GTalk:  raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com
PGP:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 18:31:32 UTC

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