- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 15:48:29 +0200
- To: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>
- Cc: boyerj@ca.ibm.com, public-forms@w3.org
On Wednesday, July 4, 2007, 12:08:04 AM, T.V wrote: TVR> Note that in today's browsers, there is a significant difference TVR> between "extension" and "plugin". Specifically, XForms for TVR> Firefox is an extension, *not* a plugin Yes, thats true and should be noted. An extension is closer to native support than a plugin. TVR> Chris Lilley writes: >> 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 -- 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 Wednesday, 4 July 2007 13:49:07 UTC