- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:48:53 +0200
- 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> 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> JB> Yet the description of the dependency between the Forms WG and the JB> HTML WG says: JB> 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> 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> 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 plugins). -- 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