On 5/1/07, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > > Why is it more reasonable to assume that XForms will become a largely > disused or niche-specific technology? That is not my assumption, rather a simple possibility. The history of computing is littered ideas that seemed compelling at one time, then later fell into disuse. Why isn't it just as reasonable to assume that XForms-based capabilities (in > whatever form they ultimately take as a result of collaboration) might > become some of the most-used capabilities in HTML5? This too is possible. (Well ... I have my doubts about "most-used" ... but it is possible.) The only way for this not to happen is for the computing problems we want to > solve on the web to stop becoming harder over time, for everyone to just > cool it with this whole demanding more business. When has that happened in > the history of the web?!? Or we may find what proves to be a better way of solving the same problem. This happens a lot. It seems you've also hauled out the old bulk-up-the-browser argument again. > I refer you to the rest of the email you snipped, which described the week > back in 2001 where the part we're arguing about was both spec'd and > implemented. Heck, it runs on phones for gosh sakes. That's terrific! Good for you (and yes, I really mean this). On the other hand, anything added to base browsers and later disused adds to that superlinear code complexity you referred to earlier. This is reason to be minimal in adding to base requirements. John M. Boyer, Ph.D. > STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher > Chair, W3C Forms Working Group > Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software > IBM Victoria Software Lab > E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com > > Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer > BTW, you might want to consider trimming the signature.
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 07:41:40 UTC