- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 14:27:39 +0300
- To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Simon Pieters" <zcorpan@gmail.com>, mark.birbeck@x-port.net, public-html@w3.org, public-html-request@w3.org
On May 1, 2007, at 01:28, John Boyer wrote: > JB: Why would we ever write a language that allows one to say C = A > + B; when we already have > > LOAD AX, 1000 > LOAD BX, 1004 > ADD AX, BX > STO AX, 1008 We have compilers between saying > C = A + B and > LOAD AX, 1000 > LOAD BX, 1004 > ADD AX, BX > STO AX, 1008 We don't load C = A + B on the CPU. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that XForms corresponds to > C = A + B and Web Forms 2.0 corresponds to > LOAD AX, 1000 > LOAD BX, 1004 > ADD AX, BX > STO AX, 1008 (I don't actually agree with considering Web Forms 2.0 to be analogous to assembly language, BTW.) If we were to follow this analogy, shouldn't we arrive at using an XForms backplane, a Web Forms 2.0 browser and a compiler-like product on the server-side in between (such as the one Orbeon makes)? This would allow authoring in XForms with the alleged ease-of-authoring benefits but would also address the situation that browser vendors are reluctant to ship browser-side XForms engines as part of the default browser feature set. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 11:27:48 UTC