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

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

From: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 13:33:53 +0200
Message-ID: <463B1A21.3040308@design-noir.de>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, mark.birbeck@x-port.net, public-html@w3.org

Henri Sivonen schrieb:
> 
> On May 3, 2007, at 23:47, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
>> WF2 is more compatible in two senses:
>>
>> 1) WF2 syntax is designed so that most constructs will degrade 
>> gracefully to reasonable behavior in browsers that only support HTML4. 
>> Clearly that is not true of XForms. The fact that WF2 does this better 
>> isn't just a matter of opinion.
>>
>> 2) WF2 is designed so that it can actually replace HTML4 forms and 
>> still support existing content, rather than being a second parallel 
>> mechanism. HTML4 forms support can't be removed without a 
>> syntactically compatible replacement. This too is not just a matter of 
>> opinion.
> 
> 3) WF2 is designed to be implementable as script libraries without 
> binary plug-in installation in IE6 (and 7). This constrains e.g. the 
> repetition syntax.

I don't think this needs to be accomplished completely. If a small set 
of features can't be ported for legacy browsers, authors will just wait 
until these browsers are vanished. That won't prevent the whole attempt 
from succeeding, and it's worthwhile in order to get a more useful 
language in the long term.

--Dao
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 11:34:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:58 GMT