W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms-editor@w3.org > December 2005

Re: XForms 1.1 namespace

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:05:48 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0512080505v33278236y84524bd8a5b45921@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: www-forms-editor@w3.org, Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>, Forms WG <w3c-forms@w3.org>

Hi Steven,

On 12/8/05, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote:
> Most implementors seem to have adopted the measure of using the namespace
> to identify the required processor, and for this reason have asked us to
> change the namespace.

Are you saying that XForms 1.0 documents cannot, in general, be
processed by XForms 1.1 processors?  If that is the case, then I agree
that a new namespace may be desirable, at least for XForms due to it
being an integrated language without access to a generic XML
integration framework.  But typically, a 1.0 to 1.1 change of a data
format indicates forward compatibility - 1.0 documents can be
processed by 1.1 processors - and to a lesser extent, backward
compatibility - some 1.1 documents could be processed by 1.0
processors(*); XHTML is a good example of this.

(*) though YMMV regarding definitions of "forward" and "backward"
compatibility - some people use opposite definitions to what I used

Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2005 13:06:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:25:07 UTC