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

Re: XForms Object Model discussion?

From: Stefano Debenedetti <sdebenedetti@e-tree.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 17:12:30 +0200
Message-ID: <3CFB875E.3030308@e-tree.com>
To: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>
CC: Wiebe Tijsma <wiebe@tijsma.com>, www-forms@w3.org

Hello Micah, we really love the XForms way, we wouldn't be here if it 
weren't so, it's that the 80% / 20 % distinction is always subject to 
change or at least shift as standards gain acceptance....

How about my other question? Is the effort of integrating with XHTML 
Forms left to the XHTML working group? Can you please point me to any 
material or roadmap for that ? The clearest and most detailed reading I 
ever found on this subject is the example you very kindly answered to a 
question on this list.

I may be wrong but I think it is more likely that the HTML crowd out 
there won't be so willing to accept XForms if they find it too hard to 
understand it. They will also have a harder time to produce something 
that actually is XForms 1.0 conformant, plus, if we don't make it clear 
for them, some people will try and integrate anyway, even if it is a 
stupid thing to do, at the risk of a new breed of hybrids. I also 
consider a risk for XForms if it gains acceptance only in server-side 
niches or if it would need XML transformations of any kind to just work.

Now that I wrote my fears I feel better, please feel free to ignore 
them, I'm no standards creation expert but have a good instinct.

Thank you ciao

Micah Dubinko wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I'm curious--what leads you to believe that a separate object model is
> needed for XForms?
> I've done a fair bit of scripting of HTML forms, and the most common thing
> to do is to grab a reference to a form control object.
> form[0].field[0].xxx (or nicer with names) htmlform.Entry1.xxx
> Would it make sense to have similar functionality for XForms? Perhaps,
> although anything beyond getElemetntById() is just a convenience function,
> right?
> The other really common thing to do in form scripting is to get and set the
> values in the form. Because of the way HTML forms were designed, in legacy
> code this too has to go through the form control object.
> htmlform.Entry1.value
> XForms gets this right and separates content and appearance. The one
> scripting function we do define is getInstanceDocument(), which returns a
> DOM representation of the instance data. This is really all you ever need,
> and it's completely separate from the presentation.
> Besides, about 80% of the things for which you need script in HTML forms can
> now be done with declarative markup. :-)
> So in conclusion, I would strongly advise anyone not to "wait" for an XForms
> Object Model, since you will be waiting a long long time! Instead, embrace
> the way of XForms--we think you'll like it. :-)
> Thanks,
> .micah
> P.S. The XForms Working Group members are travelling for the next week, with
> an unknown level of net access. Expect slow replies for a while. Thanks. -m
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Debenedetti [mailto:sdebenedetti@e-tree.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 7:17 AM
> To: Wiebe Tijsma
> Cc: www-forms@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XForms Object Model discussion?
> same doubt over here too. I don't think an XFormsOM to be really 
> required in order to put XForms to use but I do think we need some more 
> hooks to integrate it with existing HTML based web sites and 
> applications out there.
> For example, wouldn't it be nice to just add an xforms:submitInfo 
> attribute on any legacy HTML element to turn it into a nice 
> presentation-independent <submitInfo> UI?
> I could then throw an xforms:model in the head of my XHTMLs and just add 
> the proper hooks (bind, ref, submitInfo, etc.) as xforms attributes to 
> my XHTML UI.
> Will we have to wait for evolution of XHTML modularization + XForms 1.1 
> to have that or am I missing something big here and the one I described 
> above won't be the way to go and how can existing UI languages (as used 
> by millions of forms applications today) be used w/XForms is still to be 
> determined?
> Thank you and best regards,
> ciao
> ste
> Wiebe Tijsma wrote:
>>Hello All,
>>maybe this is a stupid just-entered-the-xforms-dsicussion question and i'm
>>not getting things right, but are there any plans/discussions for creating
> a
>>XForms Object Model? from my point of view creating XForms tests and
>>implementations (XSmiles) seem pretty funny ofcourse, but wouldn't it be
>>advisable to wait for a OM? I would like to be in that discussion! (don't
>>really care about the syntax, however it is ofcourse the base for the
>>Thanks and good luck in any way
>>Wiebe Tijsma
>>Triview Publishing Technologies
>>Soest, The Netherlands
Received on Monday, 3 June 2002 11:12:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:36:06 UTC