- From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:33:51 -0400
- To: "Preston L. Bannister" <preston@bannister.us>, <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu 4/26/2007 2:47 PM Preston L. Bannister wrote > I've been pretty much ignoring the discussion. Me too for rather different reasons than those that you cite however. Today's teleconference suggested to me that it is more important than I realized. I also have some doubts as to whether I really understand the implications though. Let me see if the following statements are accurate. (I am certain that several folks weill tell me if they aren't) a) the WHATWG has a forms doc b) the HTML WG has a charter says "new HTML forms and the new XForms Transitional [should] have architectural consistency" c) W3C has XForms, and the newer XForms2 (under development) as well as XFormsTransitional (http://www.w3.org/2007/03/XForms-Transitional/) which is a way for HTML folks to use XForms without namespaces. d) XForms are meant to be used in markups other than just HTML e) some folks would rather be free to make new kinds of forms without having to be constrained by other W3C specs. That's sorta the idea I got anyhow. If all this is correct, then I guess I will have to pay better attention. Please let me know I'm wrong so I can go back to a pleasant state of repose. David
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 19:33:41 UTC