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

RE: Your help is needed to better define XForms Basic

From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:23:57 -0700
Message-ID: <E840F0B7E6189547BDB91DA8BF2228AB28C42F@csmail.cardiff.com>
To: "'AndrewWatt2001@aol.com'" <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>, www-forms@w3.org
What can I say?

XForms Basic in some incarnation has always been a part of the XForms spec,
and I haven't seen any Last Call requests otherwise.

Personal opinion: these proposals are straightforward, not terribly
controversial, and a healthy step on the way to REC. I'm particularly
pleased that Working Group is able to provide so much public IO. I hope
other groups follow our example.

Thanks,

.micah


-----Original Message-----
From: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com [mailto:AndrewWatt2001@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 5:26 AM
To: MDubinko@cardiff.com; www-forms@w3.org
Subject: Re: Your help is needed to better define XForms Basic


In a message dated 18/04/02 23:37:01 GMT Daylight Time, MDubinko@cardiff.com
writes:



To solve these problems and address the Last Call comments, the Working
Group has formed an XForms Basic Task Force


Micah,

Is it a correct conclusion that the "XForms Basic Task Force" is working
towards contributing to an integrated XForms 1.0 spec? Or is your email an
implicit indication that XForms Basic 1.0 may be split off as a separate
spec?

Any estimate of how much delay will be introduced into the development of
XForms by the attempts to resolve the XForms Basic issues?

Andrew Watt 
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 15:24:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:21:51 GMT