Re: XForms Simplified Forms Syntax Review Needed

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:35:11 +0200, John Boyer <> wrote:
> Yes, I know it is not a spec.  It is a pretty good work up of a user
> scenario in which the XForms MVC architecture can be successfully
> flattened to an "on the glass" expression that is more amenable to web
> authors.
> The problem here is that we get beat up if we come to you with a  
> completed spec in which you have had no say and we get beat up if we  
> don't come with a completed spec.  How do we get past that conundrum?

My foremost concern is the interaction of the specification with deployed  
content. So if you just use HTML4 features, does it do the same thing as  
it does in browsers today? Would it look the same? Does it expose the same  
DOM interfaces? Et cetera.

There are some other concerns that are outlined here:

> But in the meantime, it doesn't make sense to claim that we're not  
> allowed to talk about the actual vocabulary name and concomitantly say  
> that you
> shouldn't look at this because you already have *done* WF2, which is
> 1) exact on syntax
> 2) supposed to be a basis for review, not done

I think Web Forms 2 and the deliverables of this Task Force per the Task  
Force charter are two separate things. I expected this Task Force to come  
up with a list of guidelines for the future of forms and the HTML WG would  
make sure that HTML5 forms are in line with those guidelines. I think that  
is reflected in the Task Force charter though as Maciej indicated there's  
room for debate.

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 17:56:11 UTC