- From: Kenneth Sklander <kenneth@sklander.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:22:00 +0100
- To: "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <1DA664E7-4024-4652-88A9-CDCD3B130545@sklander.net>
I agree with that it would be a good idea to have a name that reflects the other usages asides from form filling. But we also need to bare the legacy in mind, so sebastians proposal (xforms 1.1: XYZ :) ) seems like a very good idea as we keep the legacy and broaden the name... Ofcourse we need a good name for the "XYZ" part :) -kenneth On 25/01/2008, at 1.35, John Boyer wrote: > > 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 15:22:17 UTC