- From: Ulrich Nicolas Lissé <unl@dreamlab.net>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:38:01 +0100
- To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- CC: "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>
John Boyer wrote: > > Further to our telecon discussion about how to decide what's in or out > of XForms 1.2, there is a decision to be made here. > > Right now, I think XForms 1.2 is too big compared to what was really > mandated by our charter. This is one reason I put all remaining > "possible 1.2 or high 2.0 features" into 2.0. But it doesn't seem like > that goes far enough. I have a proposal below to cut scope for 1.2, but > first let's review what's currently listed. Agreed. Even when starting to discuss model driven switch I got the feeling that we make things more complicated instead of easier. The current feature list for XForms 1.2 is rather bloated. I fear we would fail to deliver a spec that matches the original intent. > > The features currently listed for 1.2 in the wiki > > 1) ease-of-authoring patterns that are consistent with the expectations > set forth in our charter. As a side note, we have *lots* of other ease > of authoring ideas, some are listed in 2.0 (like) AVTs and some have > crept up into 1.2 (like the repeat pattern). But none of these go into > the bucket we are calling "ease of authoring" patterns because this > bucket is targeted at the "transitional" XForms on-ramp concept in our > charter for 1.2. We need a better name than the one we have, but I > think it will be used to describe the overall release if the proposal > below is acceptable. > > 2) User interface patterns. A number of these seek to to capture what > people are doing with sets of our form controls that interact together > toward a common purpose. But some (like the wizard pattern), I think we > do not know well enough to codify something useful, and it will take too > long for 1.2 to figure it out. > > 3) Composition patterns. This has exciting stuff like nested models and > external models. It also has stuff which could be looked at as being > other than composition, like the function definitions. > > 4) Modularization. This work seems inevitable in order to do the > "simplification"/"transitional"/"on-ramp" work. > > PROPOSAL: I propose that we drop the 'patterns' theme for XForms 1.2 and > instead focus on the core charter mandate. I don't have a great name > for it yet, and I could use some help in this area. But it's something > more like "XForms 1.2: Streamlined for Web Application Authors" . > Yes, we should drop the patterns theme. As expressed at the FtF I feel a bit uncomfortable about this language. The term pattern always causes me to think of Design Patterns. Regarding the new theme: What about shortening it to "XForms 1.2: Streamlining Web Applications"? > Details: > > i) I don't think we need three subthemes. > +1 > ii) I think everything in our current "ease-of-authoring" bucket fits > into this new theme. > +1 > iii) I think we have to do the switch/using construct because it is a > bug fix to the language, and we still need to do some of those. But the > other "UI patterns" should be pushed off to 2.0 or later. > Well, I think the switch/using construct has to be discussed a little further. And I think we should include "Default trigger" in 1.2. The other UI patterns should be deferred. > iv) I think that the "custom XPath functions" fits this theme, in part > because the XPath function implementations could be provided by > Javascript. But otherwise, the composition patterns really need to be > deferred to 2.0 (as much as it pains me to say that). > +1 except for dropping external models. I would like to see model/@src in 1.2. > v) We really need to modularize what we have so that it can be made > incrementally available to authors. It fits the theme perfectly and > will streamline our ability to add more to XForms in the future. > +INF :) Regards, Uli. > Please consider this carefully and provide your feedback as soon as > possible, esp. those who sent regrets for next week's call. We need > your feedback this week if at all possible. > > Thanks, > 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 > -- Ulrich Nicolas Lissé
Received on Friday, 15 February 2008 19:38:29 UTC