- From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:24:43 -0700
- To: public-forms@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF49CD59F3.7DDFCC7C-ON882574EF.00216073-882574EF.00233E9F@ca.ibm.com>
1) In the last 10 minutes of the face-to-face, the issue of the name "WebForms-A", versus "Forms-A", was raised. Discretion being the better part of valor, I Iet the matter go at the time because we had the imminent possibility of exposure of the document at the tech plenary, and some concern expressed about the name possibly vexing certain parties. However, I do still want to circle back to having a discussion about that name because I think it is a mistake to call it anything other than WebForms-A. The W3C is that organization whose mission is to "lead the *web* to its full potential". We are the Forms working group *within the W3C*. Our mission is to define the "next generation of forms *for the web*". I do not believe it is belligerent or provocative to call our work what it is. WebForms-A is a way to impart next generation forms functionality to web pages with an attribute decoration methodology. I think we are overly worried about vexing others who, on the one hand have not shown us the same consideration, and who on the other hand will have every reason to absorb our work on "WebForms-A" into the HTML/Forms task force and use it as the next generation of what is currently called "WebForms 2.0". Put another way, if there is going to be a mending of the rift at all, it is probably going to get called WebForms-A anyway. We *have* to drive adoption of our technology, and calling it other than "WebForms-A" goes beyond issues of appeasement and nice-guys-finish-last and right down to just being a suboptimal marketing decision for our wares in the real world. 2) Now that the whole calculation system is fleshed out, that whole idea of doing an "XPath variable" version in which names at multiple levels could be accessed by XPath variables rather than using XPath just seems like a whole lot of unnecessary complexity to add, both for implementation and for understandability. It's nice that documents become more tolerant to significant structural changes using variables, but... are we sure that couldn't be an add-on for a future version. I really don't want to go so far down the path of complexity that we chase off the people at whom this is ultimately targeted. 3) Note that label, hint, help and alert look like they should be attributes in Forms-A (an attribute decoration module). This makes a lot of sense, and still allows one to scale up to our element level modules later. 4) The addition of simple increase() and decrease() operations for repeat form controls has allowed me to defer the whole issue of XForms actions (e.g. setvalue) to the "incremental adoption" chapter. I think we'll probably need to add a "set()" operation to all form controls, but otherwise, the full value of insert and delete as well as other actions like setfocus and setindex can be left to incremental xforms adoption Let's get some threads going for these points, and others you may think of. Thanks. John M. Boyer, Ph.D. STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications 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 Monday, 27 October 2008 06:25:38 UTC