- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 13:10:51 -0700
- To: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
There has been some dispute of what our charter goals to work with the Forms Task Force mean exactly. Here's the text (from <http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG- charter.html#coordination>): "The HTML WG and the Forms Working Group will work together in this Task Force to ensure that the new HTML forms and the new XForms Transitional have architectural consistency and that document authors can transition between them." Here's the conclusions I draw from this: - HTML forms and XForms transitional are not necessarily the same language; it makes no sense to call for architectural consistency between two things that are actually the same thing. - The requirement is for architectural consistency, not syntactic or API-level consistency. - The Forms Task Force is charged with ensuring architectural consistency, not necessarily writing any particular spec. - The requirement technically says HTML forms have to be architecturally consistent with XForms Transitional, and doesn't say anything at all about XForms proper. I'm willing to chalk this up to a drafting error and assuming it actually meant XForms if others agree this was a mistake. So, if we have two languages, two working groups, a task force, and a consistency mandate, how do we divide responsibilities? Here's how I would implement this in practice: - HTML Working Group continues defining HTML Forms. - Forms Working Group continues defining XForms. - Forms Task Force drafts a set of concrete requirements for architectural consistency. They closely review both new versions of XForms and new versions of HTML with respect to these requirements; HTML WG and Forms WG will take resulting feedback into account. I think this would invalidate any Formal Objection to the HTML Working Group adopting particular text as a basis for review. We would remain obligated to participate in the Forms Task Force, refine the architectural consistency requirements, and revise our spec to satisfy them. Others have interpreted our charter language to mean that the Forms part of the next HTML spec is to be written by the Forms Task Force as a merge of HTML forms features and XForms. I do not think that is a reasonable way to interpret the plain language of the charter. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:10:58 UTC