Henri Sivonen wrote: > Moreover, it says "The plan is, informed by Webforms, to extend HTML forms." > as opposed to "adopt WebForms 2.0" or something like that. I didn't know how to interpret that section about forms when I read it because Tim's statements are rather vague. However, a frightening thought just struck me. Could it mean that the W3C isn't going to use WF2 directly, but rather push ahead with Dave Ragget's Forms Lite proposal [1]? There seems to be significant discussion about it going on at www-forms [2]. The proposal seems to throw out much of the WF2 work (including some explicitly because of Opera's existing implementation), in favour a very much corrupted version that is somehow attempting to integrate with XForms. > Or will the WHAT WG activities continue with an endorsement from the W3C? I hope so. [1] http://people.w3.org/~dsr/forms-lite/ [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.64.0610241131260.5740@holly -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/Received on Saturday, 28 October 2006 10:57:34 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:59:32 GMT