W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > August 2006

Re: IBM Position Statement on XForms and Web Forms 2.0

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:36:49 +1000
Message-ID: <44F6C9D1.1010301@lachy.id.au>
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
CC: www-forms@w3.org, public-appformats@w3.org

Jim Ley wrote:
>> In fact, formsPlayer seems to add support for XForms in text/html 
>> documents, which is obviously non-conformant, because text/html is not 
>> XML!
> 
> Even I can't actually say that, and I want to, and it's unfortunate, but 
> XHTML 1.0 can be served as text/html, so therefore text/html can be XML, of 
> course that's bad, but it's a fact of life.

That is only true when the document conforms to XHTML 1.0 Appendix C. 
Appendix C does not apply to any other XML language, including XForms, 
MathML or even XHTML 1.1.  Thus, given that a mixed namespace document 
is *not* strictly "XHTML 1.0", the Appendix C Guidelines don't apply. 
Therefore, an XHTML document containing XForms (or any other XML 
language) cannot be served as text/html.

However, even if I'm wrong about that, doing so is insane and goes 
directly against what John Boyer wrote earlier in the thread:

| [...] it is important to do our best to preserve the XML basis for
| new features to help entice content toward well-formedness.

Well-formedness constraints don't apply to text/html, so that ideal is 
simply not being preserved.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 31 August 2006 11:37:19 GMT

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