Re: Forms Task Force members (roll call and call to action), Fw: Architectural Consistency - What does it mean?

Hi John,

I've made clear on the telecon and in a couple of emails to the TF that our
'activity' was predicated on some agreement from the XForms WG on what
simplification means.

So, yes, it's exciting that the WG has got some agreement on that, and that
we can now get 'active' over here in the TF. But I'd hate for anyone to
think that the lack of activity was down to myself, Nick and Sebastian. :)

Regards,

Mark

On 03/04/2008, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think that Mark B, Nick and Sebastian are on the Forms task force.
> We now have some concrete ideas that can be used to develop *some* kind of
> reasonable output from the task force.
>
> I also received the following message (part of a larger message in
> www-archive) from a co-chair of the HTML WG (Dan C.):
>
> (1) I think the line between syntax and architecture is
> blurry at best, and I don't consider it out of order
> to discuss specific syntax proposals. I'm not sure
> that's the main objective of the task force, but
> I can imagine cases where it's helpful.
>
> (2) While many have observed that the current task force
> organization hasn't produced all that much, I'd like
> to give it a try for a at least a few more weeks.
>
> Now is the time for the three of you to become active on this TF.  Please
> let me know *whether or not* you can do this.
>
> Thank you,
> John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
> Senior Technical Staff Member
> Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
> Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
> Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
> IBM Victoria Software Lab
> E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com
>
> Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
> Blog RSS feed:
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
>
>
> ----- Forwarded by John Boyer/CanWest/IBM on 04/03/2008 12:55 PM -----
>  *Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>*
> Sent by: public-forms-tf-request@w3.org
>
> 04/02/2008 09:18 PM
>   To
> public-forms-tf@w3.org  cc
>
>  Subject
> Architectural Consistency - What does it mean?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In the interests of making a positive contribution to the Task Force:
>
> "Architectural Consistency" is a pretty broad term. One thing we
> should decide as a Task Force is what sense we intend it in.
>
> Here are some possible ways of interpreting "architectural
> consistency" between multiple forms technologies:
>
> 1) Both are consistent with the Web architecture as a whole (in other
> words, URIs for addressing, documents described as markup, REST
> architecture model, etc).
>
> 2) Both may be used together on the same Web site without conflict.
>
> 3) Both may be used together in the same Web document without conflict
> (for example, through use of XML namespaces to disambiguate).
>
> 4) Both are reasonably aligned in their capabilities where they
> overlap, without gratuitous differences.
>
> 5) One may be implemented in terms of the other through a prior server
> side translation (this would be a scenario such as "author in XForms,
> translate to HTML Forms for client-side deployment").
>
> 6) One may be implemented in terms of the other through client-side
> script-based support (for example, XForms-like markup is sent to the
> client along with a script that translates the mechanisms to HTML
> Forms and implements the processing model).
>
> 7) Both must be describable in terms of a single server-side
> processing model.
>
> 8) Both must be describable in terms of a single client-side
> processing model.
>
>
> I would argue that 1-7 are all reasonable expectations for
> architectural consistency. As an example, SVG and HTML would satisfy
> criteria 1-3 and 5-7, and 4 is debatable (there is some overlap in
> areas with differences but it is in dispute whether this is necessary
> or not, and the groups are working on closer alignment).
>
> I would argue that #8 is too strong a requirement. For example, CSS
> and SVG have completely different models for layout. But because there
> are defined ways to interoperate, it is not generally argued that this
> makes them architecturally inconsistent. Similarly, http and ftp are
> completely different protocols from the client's perspective. But
> shared URI addressing and the request-response model bring them into
> an architecturally consistent whole.
>
>
> Any thoughts from other Forms TF members? Are there other criteria
> that you would see as part of "architectural consistency"? Mine are
> all pretty general to the Web and not very specific to Forms.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
>


-- 
  Mark Birbeck

  mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.x-port.net | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  x-port.net Ltd. is registered in England and Wales, number 03730711
  The registered office is at:

    2nd Floor
    Titchfield House
    69-85 Tabernacle Street
    London
    EC2A 4RR