- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:33:30 -0700
- To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Apr 26, 2007, at 6:17 PM, Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Maciej, > >> Obviously it shouldn't specify the implementation of what form >> controls are found. But does it guarantee to authors which specific >> *set* of form controls will be found? If not, how can you write >> XForms code that is interoperable between multiple implementations? > > Given that the standard has been around for a number of years, and the > list of implementations keeps growing, I think you can assume that > this question has been answered. HTML4.01 has been around for considerable more years, with many implementations, and there are many questions it does not answer. Being around a while and having lots of implementations is not enough to assume that the spec answers all the important questions - implementations could simply not be interoperable or are agreeing by convention. >> From the XForms spec, first line in the Abstract: "XForms is an XML >> application that represents the next generation of forms for the >> Web. " > > Oh...definitely. I don't dispute that there was general belief that > this would be the case. But the real world has impinged, and there is > really no reason for such a limitation. Henri's original claim was: "XForms is meant to be used only in XML- based host languages--not in HTML at all." The XForms spec seems to support his claim, that XForms is intended for use in XML-based host languages. What you said in response was: "I can see why those who aren't keen on XForms would like this to be true, but it isn't." I think that was needlessly accusatory, since your argument is based on using XForms in a way that it wasn't originally meant to be used. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 01:33:39 UTC