- From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:45:08 -0800
- To: sebastian@dreamlab.net
- Cc: boyerj@ca.ibm.com, public-forms@w3.org
1+ On what Sabastian says and to also confirm his recollection of history. On a side note, when the name XForms was proposed I had light-heartedly suggested putting the X at the end as opposed to the front produces a more notorious sounding name;-) I think attempting to convey everything in a name is a losing cause, nor are successful technologies predicated by well-pronouncable, catchy names. If that were the case, WWW, HTTP and HTML would have never seen the light of day. Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer writes: > > John, > > > So, isn't it time for the name XForms (plant) to be changed to something > > more reflective of what XForms is (a rose)? > > I agree. Some history from my side, initially this was called > XHTML Extended Forms. Since that name was too long, XForms, > became the shortcut, however it was initially not the Shortname > for XML Forms, but for XHTML Extended Forms. The original design > was quite close to what WF2 is doing today, however we felt > it wasn't enough, hence XForms, the shortcut name, echoed back > into the early design phase and really made an Extended Forms > from HTML become something bigger and more closer to XML. > > So the naming wasn't really too well thought out. However, for > the early years, it was good to somewhat hide something bigger > under the Forms umbrella, a more ambitious name would have caused > more curiousity from those parties never reading a spec and basing > strong oppinions anticipating the area of the technology > derived only from its naming and potentially causing more delays in > a somewhat difficult political environment. > > Similarly the entire Dynamic Web Application naming space is today > quite overloaded and somewhat antique. Therefore I am quite happy > that XForms is an idiom in itself regardless of trends, even > though it doesn't fully describe the technology. > > Concluding, I'd like us to keep the XForms name but add something > meaningful to it. I'd also suggest making that the name for the > next version, ideally moving directly to 2.0 (which 1.1. could > have well been in retrospec): > > "XForms 2.0: (TBD)" > > OR maybe it might not be too late to just add such additional, > explanatory name to the XForms 1.1. Spec when we transition > to PR? After all, this isn't technical and doesn't change > anything with the technology. > > All the best, > > - Sebastian > > PS: I like the buzz coming from the eXist community around "XRX" > (XQuery/REST/XForms) describing the new end-to-end XML stack > thats giving XForms such a boost. Maybe food for thought here. > > > > > > > -- Best Regards, --raman Title: Research Scientist Email: raman@google.com WWW: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/ Google: tv+raman GTalk: raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com PGP: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 22:47:19 UTC