W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > July 2007

Re: charter all set now?

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:48:53 +0200
Message-ID: <425292418.20070702184853@w3.org>
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: public-forms@w3.org

On Wednesday, June 27, 2007, 8:44:10 PM, John wrote:

JB> There is only one diff-marked section that jumped out as really
JB> different from what the Forms WG otherwise understands as its
JB> mission, as expressed in charter mission statement. 
JB> The mission statement seems to more accurately reflect our
JB> understanding, which is that it is the Forms WG mission to
JB> *develop* specifications that cover forms on the Web. 
JB> Yet the description of the dependency between the Forms WG and the
JB> HTML WG says:
JB> "The Forms WG will work with the HTML WG to ensure that XForms
JB> Transitional processors will accept the HTML Forms developed by
JB> the HTML Working Group."
JB> The last part 'developed by the HTML working group' is
JB> problematic because it is the mission of the Forms WG to develop
JB> forms on the web, accounting via the joint task force for the
JB> forms requirements foreseen by the HTML WG.   
JB> Despite this one case, I would say that my experience so far with
JB> the HTML WG suggests that their own opinions about how forms for
JB> the web are to be developed stems mostly from the fact that they
JB> do not feel bound by any statements expressed in a charter other
JB> than their own, despite the fact that you originally wrote them
JB> together.  They have expressed this directly, so this means that
JB> any statements of clarification would need to appear in both
JB> charters, not just the forms charter.

The html charter says

  The HTML WG and the Forms Working Group will work together in this
  Task Force to ensure that the new HTML forms and the new XForms
  Transitional have architectural consistency and that document
  authors can transition between them

so it seems that the existing charter already covers this. I discussed
this with the comm team and they said that the existing language
appeared to cover it.

JB> For example, there is a lot of confusion about the meaning of
JB> 'architectural consistency' and when I point to the key examples
JB> you give in the Forms WG charter, such as the expectation of
JB> "conversion from tag soup to *equivalent* XHTML serialization" or
JB> "following design principles such as separation of presentation
JB> from content", the response I get is that these are expressed in
JB> the forms charter so they are not binding on the HTML WG. 

JB> That sounds an awful lot like the HTML WG feels it is the HTML
JB> WG's mission to develop specifications that cover forms on the
JB> web, which of course undercuts the Forms WG mission and
JB> discourages motivation for Forms WG members to participate in any
JB> kind of joint task force (despite my best efforts to encourage otherwise).

JB> I think it would be fair to rephrase "but relatively little
JB> traction in the mainstream, browser sector" to something more
JB> accurate, such as "despite having only indirect support from
JB> features available in modern web browsers." 

We agree with that and have added similar wording (explicit mention of

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 16:49:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:52 UTC