W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2004

[whatwg] some issues

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:18:20 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407071410260.24332@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Matthew Raymond wrote:
> So, Web Forms 2.0 could be considered an XHTML module based on the Forms
> Module, while Web Apps 1.0 could be its own brand new XHTML module. Web
> Controls 1.0, however, doesn't seem to fit this at all.

Indeed. In fact Web Forms 2.0 even has an appendix defining its XHTML
module in detail.

> Secondly, why can't we just create a Web Forms 2.0 Mobile Profile?

There is one. It is the same as the desktop profile (i.e. the whole spec).

As we wrote in our position paper:

| Should there be a set of predefined compound document profiles (e.g.
| XHTML Basic + SMIL Basic + SVG Tiny)?
|    No. Such documents are rarely useful as UAs do not generally limit
| themselves to particular profiles. If a specification is so large that
| it requires profiling and/or cannot be implemented on small devices,
| then it is a failing of the specification that should be solved by
| editing the complete spec, possibly simplifying or obsoleting some
| parts.
 -- http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/papers/opera.html

> 3) Macromedia and Adobe have no interest supporting Web Forms because
> they both have competing products (Flash and SVG).

This was made quite clear at the Web Apps workshop.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 07:18:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:35 UTC