W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: About the Web Forms 2 proposal -- from a proposed design principles point of view

From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:03:51 -0400
Message-ID: <46315A07.2040302@earthlink.net>
To: "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>
CC: public-html@w3.org

Dailey, David P. wrote:
> On Thu 4/26/2007 3:29 PM Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
>> Web Forms 2 has taken as much features from XForms as possible to the 
>> extend that it is feasible to integrate the XForms features in a model 
>> that needs to be compatible with deployed HTML content and HTML 
>> implementations.
>  
> Let me see if I might practice responding to this in a way that seems
> like it may become appropriate once our "design principles" cease to
> be [guidelines] and become instead our "design manifesto." ...just to
> see if I can practice using these things in a way consistent with their
> apparent purpose. Let me be very literal, just for fun.
>  
> I see from the above that you are petitioning for a variance from the
> "don't reinvent the wheel" aphorism, for the reason that it is
> impossible to get there without a new kind of wheel.

   That's not what he's saying at all. He's stating that they've already
followed that principle to its furthest possible conclusion.
Furthermore, WF2 predates the working group by years and already has a
native implementation, so one could argue that discarding WF2 for
something like XForms Transitional is reinventing the wheel.

> I am then compelled, when presented with any such petition for variance
> to ask "does it break the web?"

   Any screaming calls to the Opera tech support lines about web breakage???

> It appears below that you believe the burden of proof lies with
> prospective detractors rather than with proponents:
>  
>> This is why I think it would be useful if the people who prefer XForms  
>> Transitional because Web Forms 2 doesn't meet the architectural goals of  
>> XForms clarify what changes they would like to see made to Web Forms 2  
>> that would bring it closer to those goals.

   First of all, what does this have to do with proving that there will
be no Web breakage? Secondly, it's the detractors that are making claims
of architectural incompatibility, so one would naturally expect them to
explain their own claims, especially when XForms Transitional supporters
are largely from an XForms background and have greater knowledge of the
architecture to begin with. If people make broad accusations, it's not
at all unfair to ask them to explain themselves.

> Given that other [XML and Web technologies] have come to depend on
> XForms, what impact, if any, would HTML's variance from the zoning
> ordinance have that might cause deterioration of the neighborhood?
> An ISO 14000 approach would probably require that an environmental
> impact statement be lodged concurrently with the nonconforming proposal.

   Taking this to it's logical conclusion, we'd need to justify the
existence of this working group before we can proceed.

> Have all other WG's been properly notified of your intent to deviate from
> the aphorism? Has proper time been allowed for a response?

   Well, considering the fact that WF2 has been a W3C working draft for
several months now, and was publicly accessible for years before that,
I'd say yes, they have had time to respond.

> Have all concerns of all affected stakeholders been addressed to the
> satisfaction of said stakeholders?

   In order for concerns to be addressed, they must be properly
expressed, and trying to get the XForms folk to do that has been like
pulling teeth.

> If not has form 7328Z been filed?

   Was I supposed to file that with my 1040A?

> Is that how the design principles will work? Frankly, I'd prefer a whole
> lot less formality, than I fear the "manifesto" may promote. Let's try an
> alternative approach:
>  
>  Anne, you're a smart and, I think, trustworthy person. In your opinion
> will stuff that goes on in [Web Forms 2.0] cause grief to anything I need
> to do in SVG?

   I think the SVG Working Group is already causing enough grief on its
own. However, considering the fact that XForms, SVG and XHTML are in
different namespaces, I don't see how WF2 could cause grief. However,
even if we assume that it could, how would the possibility of this be
any greater than with <canvas> or <video>? Shouldn't objections be base
on concrete use cases and scenarios rather than some vague speculation
about something that could happen?

> Or to anything else web-ish? I believe SVG's current spec has a few
> promissory notes in it about stuff that is likely to be provided by
> [XForms]. If you tell me it doesn't affect SVG or other things, then I can
> go back to my gentle repose.

   Explain to me why SVG is do intricately linked to XForms. If the two
are properly designed, they could be matched with any XML-based
language, even proprietary ones, so long as those languages don't
violate XML. If simply extending HTML forms is so devastating to various
other languages, I would submit that perhaps these XML-based languages
need serious revision.
Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 02:01:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:43 UTC