Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2

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 Wednesday, 24 January 2007 04:02:03 UTC