RE: Naming the forms/attribute technology [was Re: Discussion points for "Forms-A"]

I believe that it's important not to lose sight of other implementation
strategies, such as PicoForms in the mobile and embedded space, and
Orbeon and Chiba and others in the server-side space.
I believe that addressing the issue of generation of XForms from
server-side applications is sonething we've mostly ignored in the WG,
and addressing authors who are currently using some server-side system
(PHP, Freemarker, etc.) is a valuable goal.  I believe Joern Turner had
this in mind with the design he explained to me a few years ago with
Chiba, but getting web designers to author page templates in XSLT hasn't
been succesfull.  Orbeon has formalized its contributions in this area
with Erik Bruchez's work on XProc, which is in a similar vein, but
outside of the host document.
 
I believe server-side implementations, although none have yet delivered
on the promise, have the potential to offer a single vocabulary in which
to write static, server-side data-model and presentation operations and
dynamic versions of the same.  This approach has the potential to
allowweb application authors to write in a unified language, wtih
deployment through a split XForms model to existing HTML4 clients.  In
approach, GWT is similar, though they uniformly use Java.
 
Leigh.
 

________________________________

From: John Boyer
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 5:24 PM
To: Mark Birbeck
Cc: public-forms@w3.org; Charles F Wiecha
Subject: Re: Naming the forms/attribute technology [was Re: Discussion
points for "Forms-A"]


 ... 

First, defeat the cross-browser availability obstacle.  We're doing that
with the Ubiquity XForms processor, which gets around the problem of
needing the browser vendors to adopt our technology in order for our
technology to be available on their browsers.