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

[whatwg] WebForms vs XForms

From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:54:43 -0500
Message-ID: <41DEB0C3.6070901@earthlink.net>
Jim Ley wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 07:45:51 +0100, H?kon Wium Lie <howcome at opera.com> wrote:
>>I think you raise a valid point; ideally the specification will become
>>smaller rather than larger from now on.
> 
> How?  There are still lots of places that are under defined by my
> reading, does this mean that there are features at risk that we'll
> likely see removed, could we be told what they are?

    I think he's referring to the XForms spec getting smaller, not the 
WF2 specification. To be honest, though, I don't see the WF2 spec 
getting much bigger, although there may be later specifications that 
extend it.

>>WF has similar dependencies on DOM
>>but this seems less scary since DOM is already deployed.
> 
> WF also has dependencies on completely unspecified or under specified
> HTML that rather than being specified at all are being relied on to be
> "what browsers are doing at the moment"  I agree the page count
> comparison was a cheeky one when the explicit dependencies are
> included, but it would be nice to see the HTML you're building on well
> defined before it's built on.

    I'm not aware of any place were WF2 actually depends on unspecified 
proprietary technologies or defacto standards. I am aware that it give a 
certain amount of flexibility with regards to certain aspects of 
implementation, but so does HTML.

>>Perhaps. Personally, I don't hear the thunder.
> 
> I'd be interested as to where you see the thunder for the Web Forms
> stuff, as outside this list I mostly here boredom or derision.

    Most of what I find when doing web searches with regards to Web 
Forms 2.0 are balanced conversations that mirrors conversations we've 
already head in this mailing list. Example:

    http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum21/8102.htm

    Granted, I'm not finding huge amounts of conversation on the topic, 
which one might say suggests a lack of enthusiasm. However, with an open 
mailing list to discuss the specification in detail, with an easily 
accessible Internet archive, external discussion is largely redundant. 
What about WF2, for instance, can be brought up in polite conversation 
that can't be brought up here? I count at least forty separate 
individuals having posted to this mailing list since December 1st.
Received on Friday, 7 January 2005 07:54:43 UTC

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