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

Re: HTML forms, XForms, Web Forms - which and how much?

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:54:55 +0200
To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.trlnltec64w2qv@id-c0020>

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:14:06 +0200, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>  
wrote:
>> WF2:
>> | <label>First name: <input name="firstname"></label>
>> | <label>Surname: <input name="surname"></label>
>> |
>> | <output onforminput=
>> | "value='Hello, ' + firstname.value + ' ' + surname.value" />
>>
>>    It's not quite a simple as your above example, but it's pretty close.
>
> I agree it's quite simple, but the fact that you say that XForms is
> even simpler is an incredibly important point.

For the record, how would you do the above in XForms? As a working  
example... The above can be saved as .htm and works. No strings attached.


> The argument for Web Forms 2.0 is usually that XForms is too complex,
> and that authors need something that's just a bit more powerful than
> HTML forms, but not too powerful.

Web Forms 2.0 is evolving forms in a way that's compatible with the web. I  
think that's the major argument. Ease of authoring is of course  
considered, but I don't believe that to be the main motivator.


> [...]
>
>> XForms Transitional:
>> | <label>First name: <input name="firstname"></label>
>> | <label>Surname: <input name="surname"></label>
>> |
>> | <input readonly calculate="'Hello, ' + firstname + ' ' + surname">
>>
>>    See that XForms Transitional is even simpler. When we hybridize the
>> two, we get something that's conceptually identical to your example:
>>
>> WF2/XFT hybrid:
>> | <label>First name: <input name="firstname"></label>
>> | <label>Surname: <input name="surname"></label>
>> |
>> | <output calculate="'Hello, ' + firstname + ' ' + surname" />
>
> I'm not sure it's 'simpler' at all. [...]
>
> But anyway, putting that aside--since to some extent, issues like this
> will be a matter of taste--the big loss by using your example
> (WF2/XFT) is that you are no longer dealing with XForms, and you now
> have three form languages:
>
>   * HTML for the past;
>   * WF2/XFT for the so-called easy stuff;

I'm not sure about XFT. But WF2 covers "HTML for the past" as well.


>   * XForms for the easy stuff and the complex stuff.
>
> My argument is that the justification for a third approach that copes
> with 'simple' examples is unnecessary, since XForms can already cope
> with those simple use-cases. And not only does it cope with the 'easy
> stuff', it has the advantage that it has a whole array of more complex
> features available as the author begins to demand ever more
> functionality.

Maciej made some good arguments about what use cases XForms actually  
addresses that authors have trouble with solving today on the web. Also  
pointing out that far more complicated problems are already solved. I  
think it would be good if that's looked into some more.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 13:55:07 UTC

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