- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:13:43 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > Web Forms 2 has taken as much features from XForms as possible to the > extend that it is feasible to integrate the XForms features in a model > that needs to be compatible with deployed HTML content and HTML > implementations. This bears emphasis. The whole point of the Web Forms 2 work was to take the XForms architectural ideas and make them available to HTML authors, to help the transition to XForms (the introduction section even has a diagram showing this). Web Forms 2.0 was originally called XForms Basic; we changed it at the request of the XForms working group. Most (all?) of the ideas in XForms Transitional either were or are still in Web Forms 2.0. The ideas that are no longer there, or that have changed significantly since their original introduction, changed in response to community feedback to address issues with the proposals. These *exact same issues* have now been raised on XForms Transitional. > This is why I think it would be useful if the people who prefer XForms > Transitional because Web Forms 2 doesn't meet the architectural goals of > XForms clarify what changes they would like to see made to Web Forms 2 > that would bring it closer to those goals. I would highly encourage the XForms Transitional proponents to send review comments on Web Forms 2.0 exactly as Anne suggests. The reverse has already happened. It will be very difficult to make forward progress without everyone fully engaging in this work -- and this means that reviews have to go both ways. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 20:13:50 UTC