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 10:38:16 -0800
Message-ID: <E254B0A7E0268949ABFE5EA97B7D0CF402B93131@usa7061ms01.na.xerox.net>
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Matthew Raymond" <mattraymond@earthlink.net>, "WHAT WG List" <whatwg@whatwg.org>, <www-forms@w3.org>

Thank you Ian.  This is almost the document...but not quite: the title
here is "XHTML Module: Extensions to Form Controls", not "XForms Basic",
and it's missing the W3C trademark and the "soon" after it.  But of
course, I expect that and it is appropriate to have those changes
applied.

I'm sure the technical content is the same or almost the same.  But
again, I have no quibble with the technical contents of this or
subsequent drafts, or the ongoing discussion about them.

I must point out to those who say differently that WF2 was developed
with full knowledge of XForms, and was in fact originally called "XForms
Basic," a name already in use by W3C working drafts and a
recommendation.  

It's fine to disagree technically, it's fine to disagree about goals,
and it's fine to disagree about the future of the web, but it's not fine
to come along and make some of the revisionist historical claims that
we've seen here.

And again, as Ian asked, please stop bringing up these questions again
and again, and I'll be able to stop bringing up the answers.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] 
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:26 AM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Matthew Raymond; WHAT WG List; www-forms@w3.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
> 
> 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).

For the record, the document in question is permanently archived at:

 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2003Sep/att-0014/hfp.htm
l

Cheers,
-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 29 January 2007 18:39:02 GMT

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