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

Re: The Devil of Good is Perfect

From: Gerald Bauer <luxorxul@yahoo.ca>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 17:03:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <20030413210350.15994.qmail@web40802.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-forms@w3.org

> The Devil of Good is Perfect

  I agree with you that for ever changing the spec
leads nowhere and that it's time for action and time
to code to get real XML forms engines/browsers out in
the wild.

  However, I advocate that pioneers building XML forms
engines/browsers just use the W3C XForms spec as
inspiration and feel free to innovate (that is, by
adding goodies or cleaning-up the mess as they please)
because even if the W3C calls the spec 1.0 it's actual
closer to 0.1 and only real live experiments in the
wild will lead to an XML forms spec that will take

  Again, pre-mature standardization just kills off
innovation, leads to overly complex design (favored by
big-wigs like IBM, Adobe and so on) and leads to
endless discussions.

> >   * Markup bloat; don't overdo tags; allow
> attribute
> > shortcuts
> "One man's constant is another one's variable"
> While Gerald Bauer thinks whether putting semantics
> into attributes or as element contents is a
> variable,
> Humans who do not have the luxury of being able to
> see with their eyes would suddenly not be able to
> communicate with their government or grocery store
> in the future.
> In [4] Gerald Bauer proposes:
> <trigger>
>   <label>Touch Me</label>
> </trigger>
> vs.
> <trigger label="Touch Me" />
> We'll most happily trade the seven-year-old school
> girl [5]
> not doing XForms against making labels inaccessible.
> :-)

  Sorry, I don't see your point how a label attribute
instead of a tag makes it inaccessible.

> Talking about accessibility, in [5] Gerald Bauer
> writes:
> > I guess that says it all about IBM's approach.
> Guess
> > how interested are consultants in simplicity?
> [...]
> > If you want to make XML forms a reality, you
> > need to help startups that don't come prepacked
> with
> > massive conflict of interests.
> I may point out that it was IBM who put (ie.
> financed) a 
> strong focus on accessibility in XForms 1.0,
> start-ups
> tend to run out of cash before caring about such
> things .-)

  I guess you're a litte naive about IBM. IBM puts its
weight behind accessibility because federal US law
requires it for government contracts and IBM doesn't
want to miss out on this market. It's not like they
are altruistic (they are required by US law to do so).

  - Gerald

Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Received on Sunday, 13 April 2003 17:03:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:36:08 UTC