Re: Forms Task Force Charter Requirement

Matthew Raymond wrote:
>    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.

   Upon reading the first message in the "Architectural Consistency
Requirements for Forms" thread, it would appear that John is laying down
some guidelines that will allow us to resolve the argument over
"architectural consistency" in a more productive manner. Will the above
accurately reflected my assessment of the situation at the time I wrote
it, it may have been overly harsh.

Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 11:00:41 UTC