Re: XForms Simplified Forms Syntax Review Needed

aloha, mike!

my understanding of your quoted text:

>   The deliverables section of our charter calls for "A language
>   evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of documents 
> and  applications on the World Wide Web". On 9 Apr 2007, Mozilla 
>  Foundation, Opera Software ASA, and Apple Inc., who claim 
>  copyright on HTML5 and WF2, offered a Proposal to Adopt HTML5.

was that we were voting on HTML5 alone, and NOT WF2 -- that seems 
to be a "reasonable" and "legitimate" interpretation of the phrase
"Proposal to Adopt HTML5" -- not "Adopt HTML5 and Web Forms 2.0"


CONSERVATIVE, n.  A statesman who is enamored of existing evils,
as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them 
with others.         -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
             Gregory J. Rosmaita,
  Camera Obscura:

---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Michael(tm) Smith" <>
To: John Boyer <>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <>,,, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <>, Forms WG 
Sent: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:03:45 +0900
Subject: Re: XForms Simplified Forms Syntax Review Needed

> John Boyer <>, 2008-04-02 20:01 -0700:
> > It remains unclear why that vote was taken since it preempts the 
> > collaborative work of the task force required in both WG charters.
> As the team contact that monitored the vote and the discussion
> that led up to it, it doesn't seem accurate to me to that say it
> remains unclear why that vote was taken. The reason for it being
> taken is a matter of record.
> And note that the full text of the question put to vote was this:
>   Shall we adopt these documents as our basis for review?
>   A "yes" response indicates a willingness to use these documents
>   as the basis for discussion with the editors and the WG going
>   forward. It does not constitute endorsement of the entire
>   feature set specified in these documents, nor does it indicate
>   that you feel that the documents in their present state should
>   become a W3C Recommendation or even a W3C Working Draft.
> Note especially the language about "basis for review".
> > Gregory can formally object at any point, and the HTML WG can reopen 
> > issue at the discretion of the chairs
> Gregory voted No to the original question -- as did you and
> others. The chairs reviewed those votes and accompanying comments
> and ultimately decided that the vote carried (for the record, the
> numbers were: yes: 88, no: 4, concur: 7, abstain: 3).
> So at this point, if Gregory or somebody else were to make a
> formal objection that restated the comments already on record 
> that he submitted along with his vote, that would certainly not 
> seem to be a legitimate basis for reopening any discussion of 
> the decision.
> > if there is some new technical information, such as "the Forms
> > WG has been working on a streamlined version of XForms markup
> > that has a number of properties we have expressed are important
> > to us, so maybe we should have a look at it to see how we can
> > align whatever we have in our minds up to know with it."
> That would not seem to me at least to be new technical information.
> It would instead be a new (or alternative) proposal -- a proposal
> in addition to the proposal we had already agreed to review.
> A decision to consider review of that new proposal would be up 
> for the group to decide, but it does not affect the standing decision
> on record to accept that WF2 proposal as the basis for review.
> > This is the type of coordination and collaboration that would allow 
> > rationalization of whatever we have in XForms with whatever there is 
> > WF2.  There are things in WF2 that obviously should be replaced by 
> > in the XForms simplified syntax, just as there are quite a number of 
> > things we are doing both to our markup and to the underlying 
> > model to enable streamlined "on the glass" authoring.
> That all sounds to me like exactly what the joint Forms Task 
> Force should do -- within the framework of reviewing and 
> commenting on the existing WF2 proposal that was accepted as the 
> initial basis for such review.
> > We're trying to move closer to the compromised land... will you?
> I'm struggling to find a tactful way to say that I wish we could
> all make an effort to omit friendly little rhetorical pokes in 
> the eye like that from our discussions...
>   --Mike
------- End of Original Message -------

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 16:02:35 UTC