Re: Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2

Dave kind of beat me to saying it, but I just wanted to make sure it is 
highlighted that it's not entirely a case of XForms Tiny vs. Web Forms 2 
because XForms Tiny is already targeted at consuming the good ideas from 
Web Forms 2.

This is why XForms Tiny is succeeding as a small javascript library that 
runs on IE, FireFox, Opera, Safari, etc. as would WF2.

There are some places where we use a different syntax or logical construct 
to achieve the same requirement expressed by a WF2 feature, but in a way 
that is more scalable and/or leverages the experience of the XForms team 
in minimizing feature conflicts across the language.  But the overall goal 
and spirit of WF2 is preserved in those cases, and frankly quite a number 
of the XForms Tiny constructs are indeed similar to or identical to WF2 
precisely so that the overall goal and spirit of WF2 can be preserved 
while simultaneously mapping the resulting language onto the XForms 
architecture.

Best regards,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Workplace Forms Architect and Researcher
Co-Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com  http://www.ibm.com/software/

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> 
Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org
01/18/2007 10:30 AM

To
Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
cc
Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>, public-appformats@w3.org, 
public-appformats-request@w3.org, WHAT WG List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, 
www-forms@w3.org
Subject
Re: Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2







On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Jon Ferraiolo wrote:

>
> Hi Dave,
> Thanks for the update. Given that XF-T has already proven to run 
> on today's browsers, no matter how the W3C ends up reconciling 
> XF-T vs WF2, it seems to me that a MUST requirement is that the 
> result of this XF-T vs WF2 reconciliation should be technology 
> that can be implemented via a small JavaScript library such that 
> it can run on top of today's browsers.
>
> It would also be nice if:
>
> 1) There was a highly modular open source implementation of this 
> new (XF-T vs WF2) technology which could be added as a module to 
> the many fine Ajax libraries that exist in the world.
> 2) There was some attention to make sure that this new (XF-T vs 
> WF2) technology were designed to integrate well with HTML/Ajax 
> IDEs so that developers can create and debug their applications 
> using modern software development approaches, such as WYSIWYG 
> developer tools and integrated debuggers.
>
> Jon

Both sound like excellent suggestions, and I would be interested in 
exploring them further, preferably in collaboration with people who 
know much more about Ajax IDEs than I do.

p.s. I think that it isn't a question of XF-T vs WF2, but rather a 
synthesis of the best of both proposals. I will be exploring this on 
the public wiki maintained by the W3C Forms working group over the 
next month or so.

  Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett