- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:59:11 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
- Cc: connolly@w3.org, chris.wilson@microsoft.com, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
in a reply which comprises part of the thread "HEADERS, FOR whom - any ID?", Bill Mason wrote, quote: > They haven't been dropped. They just haven't been moved into > the HTML5 draft yet from the WF2 document. > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#labels why not? when -- if ever -- is the WF2 document to be incorporated into the HTML5 draft, much less moved to W3C web space? are we to pick apart the WF2 draft in the same wise we are carefully reviewing HTML5, or is there still the possibility of a collaboration between WF2 and XForms integration? if so, the WF2 draft should be submitted to the W3C as a working group draft... how can we issue and HTML5 draft or even a comparison document, if such an important portion of the interactive web aren't even in the spec for discussion? this is a question that has been hanging in the air since for quite some time, as evinced by john boyer's post of 3 may 2007: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0435.html in which john boyer expressed his dismay at the failure of a collaborative effort to integrate XForms concepts, constructs and ideas into HTML5 -- there is a key section worthy of quoting: quote As such, I spent yet another enormous chunk of time doing what I feel the task force should be doing. I wrote a document that concretely argues for better consideration of XForms in the "basis for review" based on comparison of an pseudo-xforms design for repeating constructs with some of the problems that seem to exist in the current WF2 repeating constructs. Despite the question being one of process, this new information (delivered before close of questionnaire) provides more technical grounds to illustrate why a more open-minded approach is needed to this work. The technical concerns I expressed also included implications for important members of the full web community *other* than web browser makers, including server purchasers, administrators, server code authors and design tool authors, Yet at the same time, my alternative example illustrated that it was possible to consider alternatives in the review without seeming to inconvenience the requirements that were expressed as being important by the web browser vendors. unquote so, have the chairs come to a definitive decision to work with WF2 to the exclusion of investigating how XForms concepts and structures could be applied to the WF2 specification (work, i might remind you, which john has already performed)? i don't recall a decision or even being explicitly asked whether to adapt WF2 into HTML5 or have an integrated task force review the document and propose alternate, yet backwardsly compatible solutions... so what are the chairs' opinion? is HTML WG supposed to review a document on public-html which exists outside of W3C space which may change at any time, and over which the HTML WG has no oversight, no formal input, no opportunity for feedback, and no analysis of WF2 versus an XForms based model, as we have repeatedly been asked to consider by the XForms working group... when are these issues going to be considered? the decision will effect not only HTML5 and WF2, but our design principles document and the differences between HTML 4.01 and HTML 5 documents, and thus seems of great import to me... gregory. -------------------------------------------------------------- BIGOT, n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain. -- Ambrose Bierce -------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory J. Rosmaita: oedipus@hicom.net Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/ Oedipus' Online Complex: http://my.opera.com/oedipus/ United Blind Advocates for Talking Signs: http://ubats.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2007 22:59:30 UTC