W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > February 2007

Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2

From: David Landwehr <david.landwehr@picoforms.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 11:46:50 +0100
Message-ID: <45C9AE1A.3090801@picoforms.com>
To: Dean Jackson <dino@w3.org>
CC: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>, "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>, WHAT WG List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, www-forms@w3.org, public-appformats@w3.org

I have some doubts about the XForms Tiny initiative from an implementors 
perspective. That the XForms working group will propose an additional 
syntax is not desirable for authors or the implementations we create and 
will not provide any benefits for us. To me it is clear that the 
segments interested in XForms and in Web Forms 2 are different and that 
there should be no problems in having two different standards.

I have written a blog entry about this 
(http://landwehr.dk/blog/2007/02/xforms_xforms_tiny_and_web_for_1.html) 
where I also publish a mail I wrote to the working group.

Best regards,
David

Dean Jackson skrev:
>
> Apologies for the top post, but I have been wondering the same things 
> as Matthew. As far as I can tell, XForms Tiny is very similar to Web 
> Forms 2.0, yet Web Forms 2.0 was labeled as dangerous to, and 
> incompatible with, XForms. Can we now assume that WF2 is acceptable to 
> the XForms community? Why wasn't  XForms Tiny proposed as deltas to WF2?
>
> Dean
>
> On 24/01/2007, at 3:00 PM, Matthew Raymond wrote:
>
>>
>> Klotz, Leigh wrote:
>>> That's reassuring.  So let's all take a look at Dave's proposals in 
>>> that
>>> light -- an HTML enhancement that maps more directly onto the concepts
>>> that have been in the XForms Rec since 2003.
>>
>>    And yet I still haven't heard anyone explain to me why WF2 or a
>> successor thereof can't accommodate these concepts. The justification
>> for developing a _SEPARATE_ specification for enhancing web forms in
>> HTML seems to be nonexistent. In fact, the spec even has huge overlaps
>> with Web Forms 2.0, so one would think that amending the WF2 working
>> draft to include more XForms-friendly features would be ideal, and yet
>> here you are duplicating time and effort...For what?!?
>>
>>    What's more, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to even explain why
>> features from WF2 were left out or implemented differently in
>> XForms-Tiny. Why use <input readonly>, for instance, and drop <output>?
>> Why make it next to impossible to use DHTML-based widgets with your
>> repetition model? I bring up these problems and all I hear is the
>> deafening sound of nobody saying anything.
>>
>>    One would almost get the impression that supporters of XForms-Tiny
>> would rather write their own spec than engage in dialogue with the
>> community that created Web Forms 2.0...
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 10:47:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:08 GMT