W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > August 2004

RE: XForms Links, Links, Links - Free Books And Much More

From: John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:56:20 -0700
Message-ID: <7874BFCCD289A645B5CE3935769F0B52B0DED2@tigger.pureedge.com>
To: "Gerald Bauer" <luxorxul@yahoo.ca>, <www-forms@w3.org>
Cc: "Sikora, Gary" <gjsikora@progeny.net>

negative cogitation -> negative connotation

JB

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Bauer [mailto:luxorxul@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 8:25 PM
To: www-forms@w3.org
Cc: Sikora, Gary
Subject: RE: XForms Links, Links, Links - Free Books And Much More



Hello Gary Sikora,

> I disagree with classifying FormsPlayer as a "Closed
> Project", why do we have to throw negative
> cogitation. Some efforts require revenue to develop
> a fully functional, quality product. 

  I'm sorry if you feel that classifying FormsPlayer
as a "Closed Source XForms Project" throws negative
cogitation. 

  Please, note that the XForms link page is hosted on
sourceforge. Sourceforge is a service chartered to
promote open source software. Thus, the XForms link
page has a bias towards open source offerings. 

  If you browse "commercial" trade magazines you will
also find that they have an extreme bias toward
commercial vendor solutions and almost always leave
out open source offerings.  

> Garage
> developed products for the most part have not shown
> life-cycles in which enterprises are willing to rely
> their success on - a System Engineering risk
> mitigation process outcome. 

  I guess you are spreading some open source FUD here.
Open source doesn't mean that you don't have any
support options. 

> You can't even say that
> FormsPlayer is proprietary because it uses an open
> standard, XForms. If you want to be fair you can say
> "Licensed", it doesn't try to influence the
> audience. Some solutions are free and others are not
> ... both are good and have their place on this
> planet.

  Well, open source offerings are licensed too unless
they are in the public domain. So I don't think
"licensed" can stand in for "closed source".

> I think it also needs to be made clear within this
> forum what these various solutions provide, not just
> what percentage of the XForms specification, but
> where they are executed, client or server-side. In
> the past we have heard that solutions like Chiba and
> FormFaces are "server-side" solutions and Deng and
> FormsPlayer are "client-side" solutions ... this is
> not good enough for the "server-side" solution
> categorization. Chiba interprets the XForms document
> and processes the bindings server-side. This means
> server round-trips are required for validation,
> relevance, etc. ... drastically inhibiting the
> user's experience, much worst than JavaScript
> applications we experience today. On the other hand,
> FormFaces interprets the XForms document server-side
> and processes the bindings client-side providing a
> user experience close to that of an application.
> Chiba is free and FormFaces is available via license
> ... there is a reason.

  Good points. Thank you for your comments. 

   - Gerald

-------------------
Gerald Bauer

XUL Alliance  | http://xulalliance.org
United XAML   | http://unitedxaml.org
XUL News Wire | http://xulnews.com
RichCon 2005  | http://richcon.com

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:56:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:21:58 GMT