- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 22:13:44 +0300
- To: Mark Seaborne <m_seaborne@mac.com>
- Cc: public-appformats@w3.org, www-forms <www-forms@w3.org>
On Sep 4, 2006, at 10:51, Mark Seaborne wrote: >>> Moreover, with the appendix C guidelines for XHTML combined with >>> making the important ease-of-authoring changes to XForms that >>> *are* what we need to harvest from WF2 >> >> If XForms is "harvesting" stuff from WF2, what's in it for WF2? > > Come on now people, the W3C is _not_ a school playground! > So rather than "What's in it for WF2?" I apologize for my ill-formulated phrasing. There *is* a technical point there, though: > 1. "Can XForms and WF2 be combined into a single spec to the > benefit of the Web?" I think that is the gist of IBM's statement. > To which I really hope the answer will be "Yes." It depends greatly on whether such unified spec omits features that already exist in XForms. However, removing features is unlikely. A significant part of the value proposition of WF2 is that it is simpler than XForms. I fail to see how a union of XForms and WF2 could be simpler than either individually. So to rephrase the question: How could the unification be accomplished without defeating a significant part of the essence and value proposition of WF2? -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 4 September 2006 19:14:05 UTC