Re: Proposal for Extensions to HTML4

> > First, calling it XForms Basic when the specification itself states that
> > it is not a subset of Xforms and the W3C already has an XForms Basic is
> > not only misleading, but some could say pretty sleazy.
>
> The name is temporary and will probably change at some point. The current
> name was a suggestion by Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer (one of the members of
> the working group).

It is indeed difficult. I'm forced to correct this. An attempt of myself to
open a communication channel with the group that is behind this
specification
with the intent of finding a solution is now hitting me having to clarify
and justify inacurate, blurred and distorted echoes of my actions presented
by
one side only in public.

The warm and friendly invitation expressed several times to join the
XForms WG and help on XForms Basic remains and stands as is. It is
puzzling and sad that a company that subscribed itself to open standards
would do everything except work together with other W3C members to
build a consensus and follow the W3C process. This route would
result in a justified naming of "XForms Basic", no-one can seriously
believe or expect that I alone speaking for myself would have any
authority of issueing the name XForms Basic to a spec being developed
outside the XForms WG and the W3C. I intended to show this route.
I did not intend that my name be used in public to suggest endorsement
of a particular technology, putting myself in a situation of having to
clarify and justify myself for actions that were really meant to be helpful.

Thank you for the opportunity to set this straight - I would like to
not continue on this sort of level in public. Thank you for your
understanding.

- Sebastian

Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 12:29:50 UTC