W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2005

[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 - what does it extend , definition of same, relation to XForms, implementation reqs.

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:44:03 +0000
Message-ID: <851c8d31050104064463908092@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 09:15:46 -0500, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
>    ??? Okay, let me get this straight. Browsers MUST support
> client-side XSLT because a couple of guys did some really interesting
> work with it?

I can't understand how you went from what I wrote to that conclusion. 
The issue at hand was whether sending FooML was good or bad, I was
trying to illustrate it was irrelevant question as there's no need to
send FooML, there's mark-up languages with known semantics.

>    I'd also like to point out that webmasters have far more control on
> the quality and reliability of server-side XSLT than they do for
> client-side XSLT. 

I have no idea what triggered this rant on XSLT, I would never use it
on the client, but that wasn't the issue at hand, I was simply using
it as an illustration of successful delivery of known XML semantics
today.  As we're discussing the future, it seems odd that people are
wishing to hobble next generation user agents with what is already
used today bases on straw man arguments on FooML.

>    If you feel that specific elements and attributes could be added to
> WF2 to decrease the use of complicated scripting,

I don't, I don't see the point of Web Forms at all as currently
proposed, they don't go far enough to be useful if they're not
supported everywhere, which they won't be simply because IE6 users
won't be upgraded in their lifetimes unless binary plugins are used
(which is Bill's original point in the thread)

> paragraph-long run-on sentence wastes the time of an
> English teacher.

It's interesting that people always go on about accessibilty and how
important it is that everything is available to all, yet when someone
who has difficulty writing attempts to join the discussion, all you do
is try to belittle them.

>    What, _specifically_, is "it"? Why would IE with working WF2 support
> require more additional Javascript than another browser?

I assume you saw Dean Edwards attempt at a Behavior that implemented a
tiny part of the Web Forms 2.0 specification?  It was a lot of
javascript, loads more than most people ever put on a form to do
validation.

Jim.
Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2005 06:44:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:20 UTC