W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > March 2005

RE: Is or isn't scripting needed, was RE: XForms vs. Web Forms

From: John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:56:35 -0800
Message-ID: <7874BFCCD289A645B5CE3935769F0B527507E7@tigger.pureedge.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Cc: "Goodrich, Christopher Michael" <cmgoodr@sandia.gov>, <www-forms@w3.org>
Hi Anne, 

Thanks for clearing up your position on these issues.
It is easier to refute a clearly stated position.

To start, 'application/xhtml+xml' is not a namespace.
The embedding of XForms tags *in the xforms namespace* can
currently be done and there do currently exist script
implementations that provide all of the functionality
of those xforms tags within existing browsers.
Hence, there is no need to assign such pages to a 
*content type* that makes the browser fail to load them.

If one wants to exercise a plugin, then one would assign
an alternate content type (e.g. application/xhtml+xml),
but one would also not insert into the document content
links to javascript that provide the behavior that the
plugin would provide natively.  

In conclusion, there is no "native implementation" of
the WHAT-WG proposal for IE, just as IE doesn't support
XForms natively.  So, regardless of which one you look at,
the choices are plugin or script.

This is simple fact is why it is mystifying that anyone
would suggest that lack of power or extensibility in the 
WHAT-WG proposal is offset by distribution advantages.
It just isn't true.

John Boyer, Ph.D.
Senior Product Architect and Research Scientist
PureEdge Solutions Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:fora@annevankesteren.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 10:41 AM
To: John Boyer
Cc: Goodrich, Christopher Michael; www-forms@w3.org
Subject: Re: Is or isn't scripting needed, was RE: XForms vs. Web Forms

John Boyer wrote:
> This is curious to me. If not with a pile of javascript, then can you
> explain how else the new attributes and their values will be given
> meaning other than by a browser upgrade?

I thought we were comparing "native implementations". If you want to 
implement WF2 in a curernt browser, then yes, you need scripting. 
However, you could create a plugin as well, as is done for XForms.

> Without scripting, isn't it the case that the WHAT-WG is no more 
> compatible with IE and other existing browsers than XForms?

Not really. Where IE would download a page using XForms embedded in 
XHTML it would show a page using WF2 in HTML. Also, the form can still 
be submitted, but client-side validation is lost.

> With scripting, isn't it true that existing browsers can be used for
> the WHAT-WG proposal?  But isn't it also true that with scripting the
> existing browsers can be used to support XForms?

The first is true. The second is false. IE doesn't support the 
'application/xhtml+xml' namespace, for example.

  Anne van Kesteren

Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 18:58:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:36:14 UTC