Re: Scope of the Forms Task Force

John,

I am certainly hoping you will give the HTML WG Co-Chairs your point  
of view and they will give it due consideration.

I will comment on one point you made:

On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:30 AM, John Boyer wrote:

>
> As to your characterization of my participation as "active and  
> forceful", I would like to juxtapose the word active with what the  
> TF has been so far, which is inactive.  You're not doing any work,  
> man.  So of course this will eventually catch the attention of at  
> least one working group chair for whom the ill-named task *force* is  
> supposed to be acting.  And it is then a simple matter of physics  
> that *force* must be applied to change the state from inactive to  
> active.  But the negative connotation on "forceful" is agitating  
> because I deliberately did not join the TF because I wanted somebody  
> besides me to do the work part. The problem is that it just isn't  
> happening, and it is something that you should be directly involved  
> in fixing and that five other people should be directly involved in  
> fixing as well.

For the record, yes, it's true, the Forms TF has not made great  
progress on its goals. I readily concede this. And this has been  
reported to the HTML WG Co-Chairs. However, I believe that of the  
activity there has been, most of it has been from the HTML WG  
representatives, Anne, Gregory and myself (for example, driving us to  
adopt a charter, requesting web space, etc.) Perhaps replacing one or  
more of the Forms WG members to the Forms TF would help matters.

Also, spurred on by your reminder of our duties, I have tried to start  
the discussion of architectural consistency, in line with the Forms  
TF's charter deliverable: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms-tf/2008Apr/0017.html 
 >

Regards,
Maciej