- From: John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:24:52 -0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, <www-forms@w3.org>
Hi David, My response (below marked by >>) is to someone who asserted that the client would receive the what-wg markup and that the document would 'work better' if the browser were upgraded and that this would be incentive to upgrade the browser. Your response has nothing to do with that thread. But it is worth separately considering, since you're suggesting deployment of new web servers that can 1) distinguish between browsers that understand what-wg syntax and those that can't 2) can determine whether the html content being served uses what-wg syntax 3) can translate what-wg syntax into a pile of legacy html+script If you replace what-wg syntax with xforms, it is clear that the same solution is possible. In fact, this is just another variation on the same suggestion that the what-wg syntax has some kind of deployment benefit. It doesn't. The only thing it will manage to do is goop up html so that it cannot be further extended to solve the numerous use cases I listed in a prior email and which you have still to comment upon. John Boyer, Ph.D. Senior Product Architect and Research Scientist PureEdge Solutions Inc. On Wednesday 2005-03-16 16:58 -0800, John Boyer wrote: >> While 'ignore what you do not understand' allows the pre-forms web >> markup >> to fail gracefully, it is a common misconception that this idea can .> transfer >> to the forms space. >> >> It can't. >If you look at the design of the features in the WF2 spec, I think it's >pretty clear that it can. >They're designed so that the client can >handle the feature if it understands it, and other the server can do the >equivalent. Handling things like required fields or repetition on the >client provides a better user experience, and handling them on the >server is in many cases required for security anyway. >-David >-- >L. David Baron <URL: http://dbaron.org/ > > Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, The Mozilla Foundation
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2005 01:24:35 UTC