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: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:59:24 +0200
To: "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.trfhlarl64w2qv@id-c0020>

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:05:33 +0200, Dailey, David P.  
<david.dailey@sru.edu> 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.
>
> [...]
>
> 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.

I'm not petitioning anything. I was just explaining why things were done  
the way they are. As far as design principles go, I think "graceful  
degradation", "pave the cowpaths", "evolution not revolution" and maybe  
"avoid needless complexity" are more relevant here than "don't reinvent  
the wheel".


> I am then compelled, when presented with any such petition for variance  
> to ask "does it break the web?" It appears below that you believe the  
> burden of proof lies with prospective detractors rather than with  
> proponents:

I'm not sure what you mean by this. As far as Web Forms 2 breaking the  
web, there has been one annoying case that broke a certain amount of  
pages. We noticed that during a alpha / beta release and got the  
specification and our implementation changed.


>> 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.
>
> Given that other XMLand other 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. Have  
> all other WG's been properly notified of your intent to deviate from the  
> aphorism? Has proper time been allowed for a response? Have all concerns  
> of all affected stakeholders been addressed to the satisfaction of said  
> stakeholders? If not has form 7328Z been filed?

HTML is not part of XMLland (or XMLand), I'm afraid. Regarding  
stakeholders etc., I think my message was an invitation to see if their  
concerns have been addressed or not.


> 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 Webforms 2 cause grief to anything I need to  
> do in SVG? 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.

I'm not sure how it would affect SVG. Web Forms 2 and XForms are  
orthogonal in the sense that both specifications use different namespaces  
for their approach (in the DOM and XML serialization as far as Web Forms 2  
goes) so you can safely use both.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 05:59:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:53 GMT