Re: XForms Simplified Forms Syntax Review Needed

On Apr 2, 2008, at 2:08 PM, John Boyer wrote:

>
> Hi Maciej,
>
> We need TF members like you to actually do a fair bit of work.
>
> For example, what are the design principles that are violated by the  
> simplified syntax?

I think that would be more appropriate to discuss in detail on the  
HTML Working Group mailing list, if you wish to make a proposal to the  
HTML WG. One clear example is use of the <select1> element, which  
would violate the Degrade Gracefully principle, since <select1> would  
fail in downlevel UAs and so degrades less gracefully than using a  
<select> element

I feel uncomfortable commenting in detail on such an incomplete  
proposal, however, as I am not sure which details are essential and  
which are open to change.

> Also, the thought here is to take the "strawman" view we have here  
> and *imagine* a bridge from it to WF2 in a way that might actually  
> involve you suggesting modifications to WF2 to achieve that bridge.

That is certainly an interesting task, but the task of the Forms TF is  
to create architectural consistency guidelines and review in light of  
them, not to imagine bridges with the chair of the Forms WG.

Regards,
Maciej

>
>
> Thanks,
> John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
> Senior Technical Staff Member
> Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
> Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
> Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
> IBM Victoria Software Lab
> E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com
>
> Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
> Blog RSS feed: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
>
>
>
>
> Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
> 04/02/2008 01:54 PM
>
> To
> "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
> cc
> John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, public-forms-tf@w3.org, Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org 
> > (new)
> Subject
> Re: XForms Simplified Forms Syntax Review Needed
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:29 PM, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
>
> > aloha, fellow forms task force members!
> >
> > maciej wrote, quote:
> >> (Fellow Forms TF members, I think it's time we come up with a
> >> draft of  the guidelines so we can satisfy our obligations to
> >> the Forms WG and  HTML WG.)
> > unquote
> >
> > i believe that it is high time that the Forms and HTML working  
> groups
> > reconsidered the joint forms task force and its goals, with an eye
> > towards dissolving the old task force and its charter, and  
> drafting a
> > new one; we have been going nowhere at no particular speed, and it  
> is
> > in everyone's best interest to consider not merely "guidelines" but
> > specific proposals -- as long as the HTML5 draft has a ToDo where  
> the
> > "Forms" section should be, there will be very little progress on  
> this
> > front, unless we re-examine the joint task force's purview...
>
> I am in favor of dissolving the Forms Task Force, since so far we have
> produced anything of value. However, I have felt reluctant to propose
> this, since I have been part of the problem (have not really done
> anything myself).
>
> I would be against chartering a Task Force to create a new set of
> elements and associated semantics to add to HTML. That is the job of
> the HTML WG. I would also be against chartering a Task Force to create
> a new syntax for XForms. That is the job of the Forms WG.
>
> From my superficial perusal of John's proposal, it does not appear to
> me that it would satisfy the HTML WG's Design Principles as written.
> Perhaps it will be improved such that it does. It also seems pretty
> incomplete, for example, what exactly is the language used in the
> "calculate" attribute,  But I would be against using a Task Force to
> bypass review by and input from the full HTML Working Group.
>
> > if that is not acceptable to my fellow joint task force members,  
> then
> > i suggest that the joint task force as currently constituted be
> > dissolved by mutual consent of the chairs of both working groups,  
> and
> > that it be replaced with a task force that will produce more  
> tangible
> > deliverables...  when i am asked about the gaping hole in the HTML5
> > draft where forms should be addressed, i'm not being queried as to
> > what theoretically might one day appear there, but specifically what
> > WILL appear there...
>
> The primary proposal on the table is Web Forms 2.0, an extension to
> HTML4 Forms that appears to satisfy the design principles. Currently
> its integration is blocked by waiting on the Forms TF to complete its
> work. I do not think creating a new TF with a broader scope would
> reduce this delay.
>
> > i proposed at our first (and so far only) telecon that we examine
> > dave raggett's XForms Transitional, but that suggestion went over
> > like the proverbial lead ballon...  we must, as a task force and
> > as members of our respective groups, reconsider our approach to
> > forms in HTML5 and XHTML and either be chartered/tasked with  
> providing
> > concrete proposals, or we should remove HTML5 from TR space as a
> > working draft, for how can one write a specification for the web  
> that
> > does not address forms, given the fact that i am using one to  
> compose
> > this, use them every day to post to wikis, and to conduct ecommerce?
>
> I think the right thing to do is to integrate Web Forms 2 integrate
> the HTML5 spec immediately. If a better proposal comes along then it
> should be entertained.  But we have a complete and detailed proposal
> in hand, which the HTML WG has already voted to adopt. Right now it is
> waiting on the Forms TF. I would like to complete the HTML WG's
> resolution to adopt Web Forms 2 and take any proposals for changes
> under review in the normal way.
>
> Let us remove the Forms TF as a blocker to progress.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>