W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms-editor@w3.org > September 2003

Comments on Opera's XHTML Module: Extensions to Form Controls

From: Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer <schnitz@mozquito.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:47:35 +0200
Message-ID: <002601c37b75$f01a4770$fc45a8c0@c020>
To: <htmlforms@damowmow.com>
Cc: <co.wanda@apple.com>, <team-xforms-review@w3.org>, <www-forms-editor@w3.org>, <howcome@opera.com>, <w3c-forms@w3c.org>, "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, <w3c-archive@w3.org>, <jax@opera.no>

Ian, everyone,


> We welcome your input on our (very much work-in-progress) proposal to
> extend HTML forms to provide what we believe authors are asking for,
> without introducing the complexity of XForms:

asking for input - I do have a question. You clearly say that you do
not support this yet, and I wonder whether there is any latest thinking
concerning real XML submission, ie. being able to control element
names and even hierarchies for submission, and loading external
data, presumably symmetrical in structure to submission.

This one feature is what XML submission is suggesting to
offer - not just a fixed structure of name / value pairs in angle
brackets - and here it seems from the spec that you indeed
intend to add this, but haven't come up with the definition
[in this document] yet.

If this is the case I'd seriously have some input. :-) This
functionality affects the design quite a bit... Being able to submit
structured XML data makes something like 'ref' and 'bind' in XForms
- 'complexity' - come into reality, and since you have apparently
not defined this functionality in your proposal, by just saying you
intend to cover this feature but without describing how,
comparisons with XForms - that does this - are technically

Once you cater for this functionality you will find it to be
so much closer to XForms as you now can see it. Exchange of
structured XML data is a central functionality that member
companies represented within and beyond the XForms WG
absolutely care about today - and have therefore invested time
and resources to define this functionality based on consensus,
within the process - any proposal not offering this functionality
cannot be seriously compared to XForms 1.0 - making any
statement in terms of simplicity or implementation cost over
XForms 1.0 be without basis.

- Sebastian

[Although I really do wish to communicate comments on the
proposal, the w3c-archive mailing list designated on the document
for comments or the www-forms-editor@w3.org mailing list included
in this thread seem wrong for this kind of discussion, as we are e.g.
turning the W3C archive into a forms working group style discussion
very similar to the ones we had on w3c-forms@w3.org in the past -
resulting in XForms. Communication between the individuals involved
in authoring this proposal and members of the XForms WG would seem
more appropriate. Joining the XForms WG mailing list would reflect
the discussion in the W3C member archives at the intended place - if
documentation of this discussion in the W3C archives is desired.
For now, I'm happy to discuss this directly with Ian, Howcome
and Jonny Axelsson of Opera - which seems more appropriate -
this being a document from Opera Software - and not a deliverable
of any kind based on consensus and discussion within the
membership of a chartered Working Group.]
Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 06:48:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:25:05 UTC