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

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

From: Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@XEROX.COM>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:13:55 -0800
Message-ID: <E254B0A7E0268949ABFE5EA97B7D0CF402B92ACB@usa7061ms01.na.xerox.net>
To: "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Elliotte Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, <www-forms@w3.org>, "WHAT WG List" <whatwg@whatwg.org>

You did see some technical objections that Opera raised, but please
check to see any comments Opera made in the preceeding years and you
will not see these issues raised.  Questions about whether the
separation of data and presentation is valuable or not should are
questions about goals.  Opera did not raise these objections during the
setting of requirements, nor during the charter development.  To come
along the day before the spec is published with a passel of "technical"
objections is clearly a political ploy, and while Opera is certainly
welcome to pursue its business any way it chooses, as technical people
we have to see past it.

Certainly it's fine for Opera to want incremental extensions to HTML,
and to want to keep the "on the glass" approach rather than the
three-layer model approach.  But ignoring the entire Forms Working Group
for years and then raising a bunch of issues at the last minute (some
real, some questions of goals, some pure smoke) is not a technical
approach.  It is a political one and has to be recognized as such.

So, please, let's get back to trying to figure out how we can have a
small number of syntaxes and a small number of models and get them to
have some commonality, and leave the political theatre of September 2003
to rest.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Graham [mailto:jg307@cam.ac.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:01 AM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Anne van Kesteren; Elliotte Harold; www-forms@w3.org; WHAT WG List
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2

Klotz, Leigh wrote:

> If Opera had wanted to engage, it would have done so in the many
> previous years, and if Opera had concerns about the direction of
XForms
> (or even XHTML (or even XML)) it would have done so at the charter and
> requirements document stages.  Not doing so was a business decision,
and
> I can't argue with that.  But please don't confuse those business
> decisions with technical objections, of which there were none
expressed.

Sorry, was I reading the same document as you? I saw a list of technical

problems that Apple and Opera identified...

-- 
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
  -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2007 18:15:00 GMT

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