W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > November 2001

Re: XForms vs XUL

From: Jim Wissner <jim@jbrix.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 21:16:29 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: www-forms@w3.org

For what it's worth, I think "forms" are underrated. I've worked on a lot 
of systems over the years, both before and after "the web," and a majority 
of them certainly have involved data viewing/manipulation/entry.  A clean 
system such as xforms that maps these data-oriented interface bindings and 
components into a single XML document which can, with some ingenuity, also 
contain much more "traditional" GUI widgetry in definition for layout, is a 
nice thing indeed.   I do like "fat desktop clients" such as Swing, but am 
also a fan of xforms.  No mutual exclusion that I can see.


At 05:56 PM 11/5/2001 -0800, T. V. Raman wrote:
>depends on what you're trying to achieve.
>We definitely dont intend turning the XForms UI layer into a
>windowing toolkit --the sweet spot for XForms authored
>applications is the ability to deliver them to more than
>just a fat (dare I say extremely obsese:-) desktop client as
>is the case with traditional GUI widgetry.
>And let's not ruffle feathers unnecessarily by saying "just
>form entry" or "GUI application"
>pick your poison and live with it:-)
> >>>>> "Brian" == Brian Grainger <granam@shaw.ca> writes:
>     Brian> At 11:23 AM 11/5/01 -0800, you wrote:
>     >> XForms takes this front-on by creating an application model,
>     >> a binding and a user interface mechanism, where the UI is
> >"bound" t the application model via the binding mechanism.
> >
> >XUL is a fine XML based language --but its goal is to create
> >UI widgetry --and UI widgets alone do not an application make.
>     Brian> Thanks very much for responding to my question.
>     Brian> Would it be fair to say then that XForms, at this
>     Brian> stage, is only for data entry and display,
>     Brian> whereas XUL provides data widgets, as well as the
>     Brian> standard range of toolbars and menu objects.
>     Brian> Granted that the forms controls in XUL may not be
>     Brian> as elegant as with XForms, but XUL does provide
>     Brian> an application binding mechanism via XBL -
>     Brian> http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/
>     Brian>  From a developers point of view, it's hard for
>     Brian> me to see what extra value XForms brings to the
>     Brian> dance, compared with XUL.  I'm certainly not
>     Brian> trying to disparage the excellent work being done
>     Brian> by the XForms Working Group. It's just that to
>     Brian> someone from the 'show me' school, XForms seems
>     Brian> to have only the very narrow capabilities of data
>     Brian> entry and display, compared to the full XML-GUI
>     Brian> approach of XUL.
>     Brian> Regards, Brian
>Best Regards,
>IBM Research: Human Language Technologies
>Phone:        1 (408) 927 2608
>Fax:        1 (408) 927 3012
>Email:        tvraman@us.ibm.com
>WWW:      http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/raman
>PGP:          http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman.asc
>Snail:        IBM Almaden Research Center,
>               650 Harry Road
>               San Jose 95120
Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 21:13:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:36:05 UTC