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

integration of WF2 into HTML5 draft -- when, if, and how?

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:59:11 -0400
To: public-html@w3.org
Cc: connolly@w3.org, chris.wilson@microsoft.com, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <20070804223329.M99773@hicom.net>

in a reply which comprises part of the thread "HEADERS, FOR whom - any 
ID?", Bill Mason wrote, quote:
> They haven't been dropped.  They just haven't been moved into 
> the HTML5 draft yet from the WF2 document.
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#labels

why not?  when -- if ever -- is the WF2 document to be incorporated 
into the HTML5 draft, much less moved to W3C web space?  are we to 
pick apart the WF2 draft in the same wise we are carefully reviewing 
HTML5, or is there still the possibility of a collaboration between 
WF2 and XForms integration?  if so, the WF2 draft should be 
submitted to the W3C as a working group draft...

how can we issue and HTML5 draft or even a comparison document, if
such an important portion of the interactive web aren't even in the 
spec for discussion?  this is a question that has been hanging in 
the air since for quite some time, as evinced by john boyer's post 
of 3 may 2007:


in which john boyer expressed his dismay at the failure of a 
collaborative effort to integrate XForms concepts, constructs and 
ideas into HTML5 -- there is a key section worthy of quoting:

As such, I spent yet another enormous chunk of time doing what I 
feel the task force should be doing.  I wrote a document that 
concretely argues for better consideration of XForms in the "basis 
for review" based on comparison of an pseudo-xforms design for 
repeating constructs with some of the problems that seem to exist 
in the current WF2 repeating constructs.
Despite the question being one of process, this new information 
(delivered before close of questionnaire) provides more technical 
grounds to illustrate why a more open-minded approach is needed to 
this work.  The technical concerns I expressed also included 
implications for important members of the full web community *other* 
than web browser makers, including server purchasers, administrators, 
server code authors and design tool authors,  Yet at the same time, 
my alternative example illustrated that it was possible to consider 
alternatives in the review without seeming to inconvenience the 
requirements that were expressed as being important by the web 
browser vendors.

so, have the chairs come to a definitive decision to work with WF2
to the exclusion of investigating how XForms concepts and structures
could be applied to the WF2 specification (work, i might remind you, 
which john has already performed)?  i don't recall a decision or even 
being explicitly asked whether to adapt WF2 into HTML5 or have an 
integrated task force review the document and propose alternate, yet
backwardsly compatible solutions...

so what are the chairs' opinion? is HTML WG supposed to review a 
document on public-html which exists outside of W3C space which may 
change at any time, and over which the HTML WG has no oversight, no 
formal input, no opportunity for feedback, and no analysis of WF2 
versus an XForms based model, as we have repeatedly been asked to 
consider by the XForms working group...

when are these issues going to be considered?  the decision will 
effect not only HTML5 and WF2, but our design principles document
and the differences between HTML 4.01 and HTML 5 documents, and thus
seems of great import to me...

  BIGOT, n.  One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an 
  opinion that you do not entertain.           -- Ambrose Bierce
               Gregory J. Rosmaita: oedipus@hicom.net
  Camera Obscura:             http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/
  Oedipus' Online Complex:    http://my.opera.com/oedipus/
  United Blind Advocates for Talking Signs: http://ubats.org/
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2007 22:59:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC