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

Re: Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2

From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:30:02 +0000 (GMT)
To: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>, public-appformats@w3.org, public-appformats-request@w3.org, WHAT WG List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, www-forms@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701181823420.5331@holly>

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Jon Ferraiolo wrote:

>
> Hi Dave,
> Thanks for the update. Given that XF-T has already proven to run 
> on today's browsers, no matter how the W3C ends up reconciling 
> XF-T vs WF2, it seems to me that a MUST requirement is that the 
> result of this XF-T vs WF2 reconciliation should be technology 
> that can be implemented via a small JavaScript library such that 
> it can run on top of today's browsers.
>
> It would also be nice if:
>
> 1) There was a highly modular open source implementation of this 
> new (XF-T vs WF2) technology which could be added as a module to 
> the many fine Ajax libraries that exist in the world.
> 2) There was some attention to make sure that this new (XF-T vs 
> WF2) technology were designed to integrate well with HTML/Ajax 
> IDEs so that developers can create and debug their applications 
> using modern software development approaches, such as WYSIWYG 
> developer tools and integrated debuggers.
>
> Jon

Both sound like excellent suggestions, and I would be interested in 
exploring them further, preferably in collaboration with people who 
know much more about Ajax IDEs than I do.

p.s. I think that it isn't a question of XF-T vs WF2, but rather a 
synthesis of the best of both proposals. I will be exploring this on 
the public wiki maintained by the W3C Forms working group over the 
next month or so.

  Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Received on Thursday, 18 January 2007 18:30:24 GMT

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