- From: Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:52:51 -0800
Uh huh, a last call comment posted 3 years after the group was formed, when Opera, a W3C member, had not participated in the development of charter, requirements, working draft, candidate recommendation, or proposed recommendation. Opera certainly has its own business interests to protect, and I can understand how with its business built around IE 5 bug compatibility for cell phones, any spec that deviates from incremental extensions to that is a threat to both its intellectual property and a promised lowering of barriers to entry to its market. If Opera had wanted to engage, it would have done so in the many previous years, and if Opera had concerns about the direction of XForms (or even XHTML (or even XML)) it would have done so at the charter and requirements document stages. Not doing so was a business decision, and I can't argue with that. But please don't confuse those business decisions with technical objections, of which there were none expressed. So, on that note, as I said before, I'm pleased that there is a potential for engaging on work with Web Forms 2.0, XForms Tiny and XForms to develop a consistent set of features build on common concepts, and with different syntaxes that appeal to a wide range developers and authors. Many hand-coding HTML authors will like the XForms Tiny and Web Forms 2.0 attribute-rich syntaxes with everything in one place. Many authors who use object or database systems (including Java libraries, PHP libraries, UI frameworks, etc) will enjoy the ability to separately declare the data values, constraints/logic/types, and presentation. Trying to get these two groups of developers and authors to agree isn't goin to happen. But as meta-level designers, people like you and I need to be able to agree on the concepts tha feed into these two different models of the world, and then synthesize some syntaxes that don't generate cognitive dissonance in the end users. Bottom line: XML isn't going away. HTML with lotsa attributes isn't going away. The separation between data, logic, and presentation in large web projects isn't going away. JavaScript isn't going away. And unless we start working together, the big mess isn't goin away either. -----Original Message----- From: www-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:30 AM To: Elliotte Harold; www-forms at w3.org Cc: WHAT WG List Subject: Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2 On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:02:57 -0500, Elliotte Harold <elharo at metalab.unc.edu> wrote: >> One would almost get the impression that supporters of XForms-Tiny >> would rather write their own spec than engage in dialogue with the >> community that created Web Forms 2.0... > > Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. http://www.w3.org/mid/200309040935.h849Znd14136 at mail.opera.no (W3C Member-only) -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2007 09:52:51 UTC