Re: Status update

In principal I agree with the criteria outlined by Maciej. 

And personally for me point 4 (Both are reasonably aligned in their 
capabilities where they  overlap, without gratuitous differences.) would 
be a criteria that I prefer that we (the Forms TF) incorporate in our 
'guidelines'. This will ensure that authors  can easily switch between 
HTML Forms, XForms and 'WebForms', it will also ensure an that an easy 
automated conversion between HTML Forms, XForms and WebForms is possible. 
And therefore the XForms WG is looking at a streamlined XForms syntax to 
see how feasible this criteria is. I know that this is one of the hardest 
criteria in the list but I think we should try satisfy this criteria to 
make life easier for the users of our specs.

Regards,

Nick Van den Bleeken  -  Research & Development Manager
Inventive Designers
Phone: +32 - 3 - 8210170
Fax: +32 - 3 - 8210171
Email: Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com



"Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> 
Sent by: public-forms-tf-request@w3.org
05/21/2008 10:56 PM

To
Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com, public-forms-tf@w3.org
cc

Subject
Re: Status update







On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:45:06 +0200, 
<Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com> wrote:
> What do you think about this approach?

I think it would therefore be better if the rest of the Task Force, 
especially those who are also a member of the Forms WG, gave input to what 
 
Maciej outlined in April[1] as it seems there's still implicit 
disagreement over what we should focus on.


[1]<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms-tf/2008Apr/0017.html>


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--




Inventive Designers' Email Disclaimer:   http://www.inventivedesigners.com/email-disclaimer =
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--