- From: Dean Jackson <dino@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 01:23:52 +1100
- To: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Cc: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>, WHAT WG List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, www-forms@w3.org, public-appformats@w3.org
Apologies for the top post, but I have been wondering the same things as Matthew. As far as I can tell, XForms Tiny is very similar to Web Forms 2.0, yet Web Forms 2.0 was labeled as dangerous to, and incompatible with, XForms. Can we now assume that WF2 is acceptable to the XForms community? Why wasn't XForms Tiny proposed as deltas to WF2? Dean On 24/01/2007, at 3:00 PM, Matthew Raymond wrote: > > Klotz, Leigh wrote: >> That's reassuring. So let's all take a look at Dave's proposals >> in that >> light -- an HTML enhancement that maps more directly onto the >> concepts >> that have been in the XForms Rec since 2003. > > And yet I still haven't heard anyone explain to me why WF2 or a > successor thereof can't accommodate these concepts. The justification > for developing a _SEPARATE_ specification for enhancing web forms in > HTML seems to be nonexistent. In fact, the spec even has huge overlaps > with Web Forms 2.0, so one would think that amending the WF2 working > draft to include more XForms-friendly features would be ideal, and yet > here you are duplicating time and effort...For what?!? > > What's more, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to even > explain why > features from WF2 were left out or implemented differently in > XForms-Tiny. Why use <input readonly>, for instance, and drop > <output>? > Why make it next to impossible to use DHTML-based widgets with your > repetition model? I bring up these problems and all I hear is the > deafening sound of nobody saying anything. > > 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...
Received on Sunday, 4 February 2007 14:24:15 UTC