Re: Forms TF Process

Hi Anne,

I don't think we need to load every discussion with statements like this:

  though it seems that our collegues (sic) in the Forms WG have lost

I assume it's obvious that this cuts both ways?

Anyway, your point that the TF might not be the best mechanism is
certainly worth thinking about. I don't want to comment on that, but I
would like to draw attention to the attitude of the XForms Working
Group to the issues that the TF is meant to address.

The WG recently concluded a pivotal face-to-face where we agreed that
the priority for XForms 1.2 should not be new XForms features, but
instead a focus on providing authors with abbreviated ways to create
XForms. The goal is to create abbreviations that would be closer in
their syntax to HTML, and as a consequence would allow authors to
gradually enhance their HTML documents by adding XForms features as
they are needed.

Perhaps more exciting though, is that we also agreed to create a
series of smaller modules that authors could use to enhance their
documents. Implementers could therefore choose to implement smaller
parts of XForms without having to embrace XForms in its entirety. (As
it happens, this is already what is happening, since parts of XForms
are used in ODF and Yahoo's mobile platform, to mention a couple;
we're simply discussing in the working group how to make it easier for
language designers and library builders to incorporate XForms

Together these two developments will provide for the creation of a
smooth route from the simplicity of HTML forms to the more powerful

I know that this approach is actually what I flagged up on our TF
telecon a while back; but the key development now is that this is at
the core of the approach to XForms 1.2, rather than being something
that a couple of interested parties will pursue.

As a consequence I believe we are not far from being in a situation
where we can actually make some meaningful progress in the TF, should
people conclude that it could still be a useful umbrella. (Obviously
the work would continue at the XForms WG, even without the TF, but
coordination remains a useful goal.)



On 15/02/2008, Anne van Kesteren <> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I saw the Forms TF mentioned during yesterday's telcon and at least one
> person was wondering if I could provide some kind of status report so I
> thought I'd do that.
> The Forms TF started around July 2007 and has a public website I set up
> last year:
> I have also created a charter proposal for the Forms TF and no objections
> have been raised against it. The charter is located here:
> I have mentioned that this charter is now our official charter on the
> mailing list and solicited input on our deliverables at the end of
> November 2007 (as you can tell I have not updated the website yet):
> Up until now that is the last e-mail that has been sent to the Forms TF
> list. I'm not sure what conclusions I have to draw from this, though it
> seems that our collegues in the Forms WG have lost interest in working on
> this.
> I personally think that if nothing has happened by July 2008 we should
> dismantle the Forms TF and handle any remaining issues by simply reviewing
> and commenting on each others' work.
> If there are any further questions on the Forms TF just let me by e-mail
> or IRC and I'll do my best to answer them accurately.
> Kind regards,
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> <>
> <>

  Mark Birbeck | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 | Ltd. is registered in England and Wales, number 03730711
  The registered office is at:

    2nd Floor
    Titchfield House
    69-85 Tabernacle Street
    EC2A 4RR

Received on Saturday, 16 February 2008 17:20:18 UTC