W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: brainstorming: test cases, issues, goals, etc.

From: Mihai Sucan <mihai.sucan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:46:38 +0200
To: "Laurens Holst" <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.to6730xamcpsjgr0b0dp@localhost.localdomain>

Le Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:00:41 +0200, Laurens Holst  
<lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> a écrit:

> I’d say the situation is as follows; the three ‘alternative’ browsers
> represented in the WHATWG are very eager to implement new stuff. There
> are some nice specifications out there. However, for a new formats to
> really succeed, you need it implemented in Microsoft’s Internet Explorer
> as well, otherwise it will always only be used in a niche market (just
> like, say, XHTML is now), unless the browser market changes really
> significantly over the next few years. And the patent policy is an
> important prerequisite for Microsoft, especially after the Eolas patent
> case. Therefore, I think it’s inevitable that the W3C should take the
> lead here, and not the WHATWG, if the specification is meant to succeed.

Completely agreed. Patent policy is not only a problem with Microsoft.  
This problem can hit any company, including, but not limited to Mozilla,  
Opera, Apple. The "special" thing about Microsoft is that they are the  
first target for patent infringement law suits (being the biggest company  
and all that).

> 1. A continue-the-work approach within the limits of the patent policy.
>
> For something to be patented, it must be non-trivial, and there must not
> be prior art, right? One could run through the WHATWG spec and look for
> [...]

Interesting idea about the patents.

The second approach, while it's good by itself, would probably take too  
long to do. It all really depends on what the working group chairs want.

> Now, with regard to the Forms task force there is a quite evolved spec
> out there, even with some implementation in Opera already, and Canvas in
> the other browsers—except IE—too, but I am also very interested in
> hearing more about this ‘XForms Transitional’ idea that was mentioned. I
> have looked at Web Forms 2.0 myself when creating a forms validation
> solution for the Backbase 4.0 AJAX library, and I found the Web Forms
> 2.0 stuff to be fairly simple and limited. XForms wasn’t exactly what we
> were looking for either, we weren’t going to implement the whole thing
> (yet), so in the end we ended up having validation based on XML Schema
> Datatypes (like XForms) because they allowed better expression of
> validation rules, data types and inheritance, but in a somewhat simpler
> way (like Web Forms 2.0). I wouldn’t mind elaborating on this, but I
> won’t do it now :).

I believe the "beauty" of Web Forms 2 is precisely being easy, and  
approachable by developers. The FTF has to do something around the same  
idea. WF2 is a very welcome improvement.



-- 
http://www.robodesign.ro
ROBO Design - We bring you the future
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:46:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:46:57 GMT