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

On Wednesday 2005-03-16 17:24 -0800, John Boyer wrote:
> My response (below marked by >>) is to someone who asserted that

someone == me (although it would be nice if your email had indicated
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.

I don't see why you think it doesn't, but it may be because of the
misunderstandings that I correct in my responses below.

> But it is worth separately considering, since you're suggesting
> deployment of new web servers that can 

None of these are necessary.

> 1) distinguish between browsers that understand what-wg syntax and 
> those that can't

There's no need to distinguish.  Handling of required fields being
missing won't be needed if the client supports enforcement, so the
server just needs to redisplay the form with a note about the
requirement, as servers do today.  Handling of the submission of a WF2
repetition input won't be needed if the client supports the WF2
repetition model, so a server receiving such a submission just needs to
generate the repetition manually for the old client.


> 2) can determine whether the html content being served uses 
> what-wg syntax

Again, unnecessary.  The point is that the WF2 syntax can be sent to
existing clients.

> 3) can translate what-wg syntax into a pile of legacy html+script

Likewise, unnecessary.

> If you replace what-wg syntax with xforms, it is clear that
> the same solution is possible.

That solution is possible and probably often necessary for XForms, but
WF2 is designed so that it is unnecessary.

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
          Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, The Mozilla Foundation