Re: Forms TF Process

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:35:34 +0100, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>  
wrote:
> Speaking for myself, I don't see a strong case either way. I'm keen to
> see XForms relate much more directly to 'traditional' HTML forms, so
> that authors and implementers have a natural path from one to the
> other. But whether that should encompass HTML 5 Forms I'm less certain
> of--one could argue it both ways.

It would be useful I think if the Forms WG could clarify its position on  
this. It has always been my understanding that the Task Force was formed  
because HTML Forms were not deemed acceptable.


> (The 'for' is that it would of course be good if the W3C had a
> coherent and consistent forms vision. But the 'against' is that the
> design goals of HTML 5 seem to be quite different to the approach
> being taken with language modularisation, illustrated by such things
> as @role, RDFa, and now XForms, that this may simply not be possible.)

The major showstopper as I see it is not feature-wise (@role, etc.) or how  
you write the language down (modularization or not), but how you deal with  
how <input> works today and how it works in XForms. How <form> works today  
and how it works in XForms, et cetera. Given that what's in HTML 4, DOM  
Level 2 HTML, and in browsers is more or less locked down (with the  
exception of experimental extensions of course) it seems impossible to  
bridge the gap.


> I would suggest that the next step is for the XForms WG to get out a
> draft of some of these ideas, and then you guys can take a look and
> see if it works for you.

Ok.


By the way, is  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Feb/att-0080/2008-02-27.html#topic4  
an accurate reflection of what was said, because XForms 1.2 is not an  
agreed deliverable of the Forms TF...



-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 12:01:04 UTC