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: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:10:49 -0800
Message-ID: <E254B0A7E0268949ABFE5EA97B7D0CF402B93120@usa7061ms01.na.xerox.net>
To: "Matthew Raymond" <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
Cc: <www-forms@w3.org>, "WHAT WG List" <whatwg@whatwg.org>

Matthew,

I'm afraid you were misinformed.

At http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2003Oct/0028 you can
see a report I made on 2003 October in which I first encountered this
work.  I was looking for "XForms Basic," the name of a Working Draft
from the W3C Forms Working group, and found that the #2 hit on Google
was http://www.damowmow.com/temp/hfp.html , a site which currently
redirects to the WHAT-WG site, and whose robots.txt entry has apparently
subsequently caused its removal from archive.org (apparently
subsequently as Google managed to index it, and they obey robots.txt). 

As I recall, this document used the W3C's stylesheet and formats,
including a background PNG saying "W3C Working Draft," and bore the
title "XForms Basic."  Based on mail notes from the time, I've extracted
this description of the relationship bewteen that document and the W3C's
XForms:  "XForms is aimed at the specialist form authoring world, for
products that will not typically be sent over, or used as part of, the
World Wide Web."

So again, I must agree that the pre-history of Web Forms 2.0 is a direct
counter to XForms, but I must also agree that we should focus on current
technical issues, and not attempt to reconstruct a history of blissfully
ignorant parallel evolution.

Leigh.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Matthew Raymond
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 6:57 PM
To: Elliotte Harold
Cc: www-forms@w3.org; WHAT WG List
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2


Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Matthew Raymond wrote:
>>    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...
> 
> Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black.

   See this URL:

   http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#r-to-xforms

   "This specification is in no way aimed at replacing XForms 1.0
[XForms], nor is it a subset of XForms 1.0."

   Where can I read a similar statement about XForms-Tiny not replacing
WF2? "Pot calling the kettle black"? Bullsh*t!
Received on Monday, 29 January 2007 18:11:07 GMT

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