- From: Charles F Wiecha <wiecha@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:22:51 -0500
- To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: Forms WG (new) <public-forms@w3.org>, public-forms-request@w3.org
Well...this broader vision for XForms is certainly why I joined the WG, and have been interested in the "Backplane" ideas for some time. Indeed the phrase Backplane is intended to imply the broader applicability of "components" such as submission, data model, validation, MVC binding and events to broader web applications -- in a variety of host languages and platforms just as XForms applies to those cases as well. In my own work, apart from the WG, I've often been asked why I keep so focused on "forms" when the web is so much broader. I spend a lot of effort explaining how the above ideas have incubated in forms but are in fact part of the deeper web stack. I'm getting pretty tired of this and frankly it's starting to be a handicap so I'd welcome some help in a name change here :} Thanks, Charlie A rose by any other name... John Boyer to: Forms WG (new) 01/24/08 07:36 PM Sent by: public-forms-request@w3.org In some ways it's too bad that the need for dynamic, interactive XML applications arose first in the web forms space. One reason is that we called it XForms, and it has always been a challenge to get people excited about forms. They have too many pre-conceived notions about the uses and limitations of forms technology based on their prior experiences with older technologies for delivering forms. Whether purely instantiated with paper, or whether it's a print and fill or even a fill and print system, or an old html form, the dynamism of what we do today seems to me qualitatively different than what is done with those other technologies. It's a little like comparing a bicycle and a car on the basis that both involve the use of wheels to get you from point A to point B. Bit of a stretch, don't you think? Similarly, calling our dynamic interactive XML applications "XForms" because forms collect data is also a bit of a stretch. The word "form" just doesn't evoke the full measure of business process enablement of which so-called "XForms" are capable. Whether you ascribe to the more ephemeral view in which an XForm serves as the intelligent front-end face of the business process, or whether you subscribe to the philosophy of the intelligent document as the fundamental unit of information interchange in a business process, the simple fact remains that calling our information processing assets "forms" is about as informative as trying to sell "plants" when you mean to sell roses. The rose does smell just as sweet no matter what you call it, but if you call it a plant, you won't attract as many customers. So, isn't it time for the name XForms (plant) to be changed to something more reflective of what XForms is (a rose)? 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
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 13:23:26 UTC