W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2008

Scope of the Forms Task Force

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 20:56:02 -0700
Message-Id: <B0EA6934-172A-4E70-B97E-8F1452B8D036@apple.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Cc: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>


Hello Dan & Chris,

John Boyer has asked the Forms TF to review and help flesh out a  
syntax proposal from the Forms WG; he would like the Forms TF to then  
strongly recommend the HTML WG to adopt this syntax. I believe this is  
outside the Forms TF's charter, which was unanimously adopted by  
members of the Forms TF:

http://www.w3.org/2007/10/forms-tf/charter-proposal

(This is marked a proposal but has been adopted by unanimous  
resolution of the TF and is regrettably not yet in a more official  
location.)

This charter defines our scope as producing guidelines for  
architectural consistency. Our deliverables are given as a joint W3C  
Note stating these architectural consistency guidelines, and review of  
specs from the HTML WG and Forms WG that are related to forms, for  
consistency with these guidelines.

The thread starts here:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms-tf/2008Apr/0000.html

In this email, John suggests that architectural consistency guidelines  
can and should include definition of a specific vocabulary and syntax,  
and suggests that notwithstanding the TF charter we should follow the  
"real" charter:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms-tf/2008Apr/0005.html

In my view, syntax is not architecture. Indeed, the Forms TF charter  
is clear that the HTML WG and Forms WG are expected to each have their  
own specifications which are evaluated against the guidelines.


In addition, the Forms TF was carefully balanced between HTML WG and  
Forms WG members, with an equal number of representatives from each  
WG. This direct intervention by the Forms WG Chair to propose a  
particular work agenda casts that balance into doubt.


In a later email (not yet archived), John says,

> You've tried to give me the action item to check with your chairs,  
> but they have already been notified via the hypertext coordination  
> group that we are making progress on a simplified syntax as an  
> effort to kickstart task force work.
>
> I do not need further permission from them to begin communicating to  
> a task force that it is essentially doing no work and that I would  
> like this to change.  It is my job as a chair to promote more  
> activity from a task force that is supposed to be working on behalf  
> of my working group and another related working group, and frankly  
> it is also the job of the other working group's chairs to also be  
> pushing for the task force to do work.

Implying that the HTML WG Chairs are aware of and OK with his actions  
in pushing this Forms WG proposal as a Forms TF deliverable.


Since the Forms TF ultimately reports to the HTML WG and Forms WG  
Chairs, I would like the respective Chairs to please advise the Forms  
TF as follows:

- Should we develop a syntax on behalf of the HTML WG, notwithstanding  
our fairly clear charter to the contrary? At the time the charter was  
adopted, TF members agreed that it was not our job to define specific  
syntax, just to describe architectural consistency.

- Is it ok for the Forms WG to effectively add an additional  
representative to the group, through the active and forceful  
participation of the Forms WG Chair (who is not a TF representative)?  
If so, should we also add an additional HTML WG representative?

I do not need to be involved in these discussions among the Chairs,  
unless the Chairs would like further input from me.


Best Regards,
Maciej Stachowiak
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 03:56:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:13 GMT