Re: Forms Task Force Charter Requirement

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> What I'd like to figure out is if there's a way to address the needs  
> of Forms WG without giving you guys editorial control of part of the  
> spec, which I think is a bad idea and not justified by the charter.  
> Is there anything short of editorial control that would satisfy you?  
> Consider, for example, my proposal of defining shared architectural  
> requirements and reviewing both specs to ensure they satisfy the  
> requirements. Surely this is a valid way to achieve architectural  
> consistency. What do you find unsatisfactory about it? Perhaps that  
> will help us find a middle ground.

   What is unsatisfactory about that to John Boyer and a small few in
the XForms WG is that they want their Working Group to have full
authority over everything that has to do with forms on the Web. Although
they claim to be interested in compromise, their idea of compromise is
"help us improve XForms Transitional". Web Forms 2.0 is vastly more
detailed that their current XForms Transitional document, yet I can
barely get them to state that they _might_ reuse some of the WF2 text in
the next XFT draft, forget about getting them to agree on merging the
two. For crying out load, you have a W3C Working Group Chair telling
people to "take a chill pill" and to go "find a dictionary and look up
what 'working together' means". I don't think they even understand what
compromise is, and it doesn't bode well for our Working Group. In the
end, if people like John Boyer get their way, W3C will be the next
XFree86 Project.

Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 03:10:21 UTC