Re: HTML forms, XForms, Web Forms - which and how much?

On Tue, 01 May 2007 13:32:53 +0200, Mark Birbeck <>  
>> For the record, how would you do the above in XForms? As a working
>> example... The above can be saved as .htm and works. No strings  
>> attached.
> I don't understand the question, because you are right that the above
> can be saved as .htm and works, but that is only true if the browser
> which opens the file has some access to a Web Forms 2.0 processor
> (either built-in, as a plug-in, or via script). Now, since the same is
> obviously true of an HTML document that contains XForms--again,
> provided that the browser has access to an XForms processor, either
> built-in, as a plug-in, or via script)--I'm wondering have I missed
> your point?

My question was what the equivalent XForms would be. As it was alluded to  
be simpler.

> I keep hearing this phrase 'compatible with the web', but it seems to
> have no substance. I assume we agree that to get additional features,
> we need to change something? And I would expect that we also agree
> that the changes made to improve the popular languages like HTML and
> XHTML are preferred to, say, XAML. But beyond that, all you are saying
> is that you prefer the changes proposed in Web Forms 2.0 to the
> changes proposed in XForms. That's of course entirely up to you, but
> WF 2.0 doesn't have a monopoly on being 'compatible with the web'. In
> fact, you could easily argue that XForms is way more compatible with
> the current direction of the web, since it implements many of the
> features that developers have turned to Ajax libraries for.

Compatible with HTML4 and DOM Level 2 HTML with modifications to those  
specifications that are required to support existing content is what I  
mean. XForms doesn't build on top of that.

>> Maciej made some good arguments about what use cases XForms actually
>> addresses that authors have trouble with solving today on the web. Also
>> pointing out that far more complicated problems are already solved. I
>> think it would be good if that's looked into some more.
> The complicated cases are not solved. But there is a reality that
> seems to be ignored--developers are using Ajax in droves, because
> current browsers are so under-specified and inconsistent in their
> behaviour, so there is quite clearly a desire for more powerful
> functionality. Although Web Forms 2.0 does some very clever things, I
> don't think it provides enough at the 'top end' for authors looking to
> get far more 'bang for their buck'.

It's not clear to me what you mean.

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 10:04:48 UTC