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: Eric S. Fisher <efisher@fsystems.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:07:45 -0500
To: "www-forms@w3.org" <www-forms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <opsnreu7lutdhxwl@smtp.charter.net>

Gentlemen, please!!

This looks to me as if what began as a discussion of the relative merits  
of two different but related technologies has degenerated into an  
either-or choose-up-your-sides flame war.  We began with carefully  
constructed arguments with coding examples to illustrate points, and now  
we have "yes it can -- no it can't" without any substance.  Can we cool  
this off a bit?

If many of us, including Ian Hickson, can agree that both technologies  
have merit, and that neither is intended to replace the other, can we all  
return to adult-level discussions based on reason and examples?

I was learning a lot about these technologies from the exchanges when this  
discussion started.  This last exchange is meaningless to me.

Eric S. Fisher

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:44:11 -0800, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>  
wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
Important Note:  This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged,  
undisclosed or otherwise confidential information.  If you have received  
this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or  
distribution of it is strictly prohibited.  Please inform me immediately  
and destroy the original transmittal.  Thank you for your cooperation.
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2005 02:23:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:00 GMT