W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms-editor@w3.org > June 2002

FW: Potential Last Call comment to be resent to www-forms-editor@ w3.org

From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:11:48 -0700
Message-ID: <E840F0B7E6189547BDB91DA8BF2228AB28C571@csmail.cardiff.com>
To: "'www-forms-editor@w3.org'" <www-forms-editor@w3.org>



-----Original Message-----
From: Werner Donné [mailto:werner.donne@re.be]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 8:23 AM
To: Micah Dubinko
Subject: Re: Potential Last Call comment to be resent to
www-forms-editor@ w3.org


Dear Micah,

Thank you very much. It does indeed answer my question.

Regards,

Werner.

Micah Dubinko wrote:

> Greetings Werner,
> 
> In response to your message at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2002Jan/0155.html
> 
> 
>>Should we really care about legacy?
>>
> 
> Yes, but with careful balance.
> 
> Our charter and requirements document [1] impose upon us to work out a
> solution that will "encourage users to make use of the new capabilities,
> rather than lingering on existing form technologies." 
> 
> At the same time, we're very aware of the potential to "box ourselves in",
> which we want to avoid. Here are some specific changes we've made to
> accomplish both of these goals:
> 
> * We define a backwards-compatible method for GET forms that uses
> urlencoding and UTF-8 handling of special characters. We do not
"deprecate"
> GET. The flat name-value pairs are taken from the XML in a one-way
> conversion process.
> 
> * For richer data submission, we define an XML serialization. For
> interoperability, we require implementations to support http, but give
> examples of many other possibilities (for instance, a PUT form could write
> to the filesystem). 
> 
> * We permit implementations to provide new serialization methods and
> submission protocols
> 
> * We are clarifying that all instance data maps to a DOM Document, and
> provide an accessor to that Document. Through this, countless "dynamic
> XForms" possibilities are opened, and there's no need for "submit" to have
> something useful.
> 
> 
> 
>>In my opinion the specification would have more value if it didn't refer
to
>>
> the web directly, but only specified, in isolation, what is required if it
> is used in a web context.
> 
> We have made great strides in this direction. Probably a far as is
possible
> under a Web Consortium. :-) We define the following submit methods, with a
> normative binding to HTTP and suggestions on how mailto:, file: and others
> would fit the same descriptions:
> 
> get
> put (file: for example)
> post (mailto: for example)
> legacy encodings (post-urlencoded, etc.)
> 
> 
>>I think the central part of the specification should only cover behaviour
>>
> and content.
> 
> Another change we've made is to describe the pieces of XForms as
"modules".
> For instance, instead of a chapter on "Form Controls", we now have a
chapter
> on "The Form Control Module". This seems like just an organizational
change,
> but it has a much bigger effect on how people will look at and think about
> using XForms. For general XForms-on-the-Web, we define a specific profile
> that needs to be met. But if someone wants only XForms behavior and
content,
> for example, we are showing the recipe for that too. (In fact, we've had
> great interest from companies that claim an embedded XForms implementation
> will be cheaper for them to produce than a custom-UI).
> 
> 
>>Separate sections could explain how the data, which is to be submitted, is
>>
> serialised in the various contexts. Obvious contexts are plain HTTP, SOAP
> over any protocol such as HTTP, SMTP, etc., and even IIOP.
> 
> This is in fact now a separate section (chapter) in the specification. And
> we do include examples of http, https, mailto, and file schemes, as well
as
> providing an extensibility mechanism for anything else (SOAP, IIOP, BEEP,
> whatever).
> 
> I hope this answers your question. Thanks!
> 
> .micah
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-forms-req
> 
> 
>>Thierry Michel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dear Werner Donné,
>>>
>>>During the Last Call comment period for XForms, you sent a message [1]
>>>
> to
> 
>>>the XForms public mailing list that has been identified as a potential
>>>
> Last
> 
>>>Call comment. If you intended this message as a formal Last Call
>>>
> comment,
> 
>>>but accidentally sent it to www-forms@w3.org instead of
>>>www-forms-editor@w3.org, please respond in the affirmative to this
>>>
> message
> 
>>>within the next two weeks.
>>>
>>>Sincerely,
>>>Thierry Michel for the Xforms WG.
>>>
>>>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2002Jan/0155.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Werner Donné  --  Re BVBA
>>Engelbeekstraat 8
>>B-3300 Tienen
>>tel: (+32) 486 425803 e-mail: werner.donne@re.be
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Werner Donné  --  Re BVBA
Engelbeekstraat 8
B-3300 Tienen
tel: (+32) 486 425803	e-mail: werner.donne@re.be
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 14:11:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 June 2009 18:12:11 GMT