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

RE: XForms plus XUL

From: Shone Sadler <ssadler@qlinktech.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:17:34 -0400
Message-ID: <F0E0E3343DCD2147B6B417F850678537567ABE@apollo11.qlinktech.com>
To: "Kevin Ross" <kross@integra-online.com>, <www-forms@w3.org>

I also see the two technologies as complementary.  The main benefit we
see in XForms is its ability to gather information in a platform
independent fashion.  A significant aspect of our workflow product
involves routing work to users.  XForms provides a standard
representation for forms that we utilize to gather information from
those users for purposes of completing their step of a business process.
Unlike XUL, XForms focuses on the interaction with the end user needed
to gather input and does not attempt to model a full application.  Which
in the end is exactly what we need, because we expect the forms designed
in our product to by plugged into web clients (Our own XForms engine,
Chiba, IBM's XForms), JFC Clients (XSmiles, Novell, etc...),
.NET/Windows clients (Bridge to Infopath?, XFormsPlayer, DENG, etc...),
and perhaps XUL apps as well.

Shone Sadler
Chief Architect
Q-Link Technologies
800-889-6390 Ext:108
http://www.qlinktech.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Ross [mailto:kross@integra-online.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 11:04 AM
To: www-forms@w3.org
Subject: RE: XForms plus XUL


>>Well, XForms needs a host language and if I dare to
>>say XHTML doesn't cut it.

xsl:fo, xhtml, svg?  These aren't valid host languages to suit 99.9% of
the coming needs?  I'm by no means an expert on any of the technologies
involved, but I don't want other readers of this list to think that
xforms is confined to xhtml.

-Kevin Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: www-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Gerald Bauer
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 7:33 AM
To: www-forms@w3.org
Subject: XForms plus XUL


Hi Ben,

> > As far as I can tell XForms is a dead technology.
> > You  might wonna check out some alternatives such
> as
> > up and coming XUL engines/browsers/runtimes.
> 
> I beg to differ. :)
> 
> xul / asp.net / et al - are declarative programming
> languages. Xforms is
> functional. 

   I agree there are lots of great ideas in XForms.
However, as I see it the W3C stewardship is killing
the "official" XForms by refusing to clean-up the spec
and by refusing to help foster innovation by
pretenting they already have all the answers.

   XUL if I dare to say is a much better fit for
XForms than say XHTML or SVG because XUL already has a
rich widgetset.

> Xforms are easier to develop. Just drop an
> <xforms:input/> and go. ASP
> and XUL aren't as portable or easy to develop for.

  ASP for sure is a dead-end. However, XUL is the up
and coming next-gen XML browser markup and it's going
to be portable and easy to develop for vastly
surpassing XForms in its reach.
 
> Plus, there are some very nice xforms
> implementations in the wings.

  Well, XForms needs a host language and if I dare to
say XHTML doesn't cut it. Why not use XUL for your
host language?

  - Gerald


______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Received on Monday, 23 June 2003 12:17:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:21:55 GMT