- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:18:20 +0000 (UTC)
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