- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:31:58 +0000
On 28 Jan 2007, at 14:31, Elliotte Harold wrote: > Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > >> It's not replacing it, as XForms 1.0 MUST be in an XML document, >> whereas WF2 can be put in an HTML document. Both, IMO, have very >> different use-cases. > > FUD. FUD, FUD. Which part of that is spreading either fear, uncertainty, or doubt, or are you just misusing the acronym? > > The W3C is trying to drive the Web to XHTML. XForms is part of this > vision. > > Some people disagree with this and have formed the WhatWG to > support classic HTML and a different kind of forms tech. > > The two technologies are in active competition. Maybe one will win. > Maybe both will. Maybe neither. I don't know, and I'm not sure > which I prefer to happen. Some days I prefer one. Some days the other. > > But don't kid yourself. They are absolutely competing with each > other for market and mindshare, and that competition is only going > to grow over the next year. No, HTML and XHTML are competing ? XForms MUST be in XHTML, so thereby preventing anyone using HTML cannot use it. Within text/html data (as to include XHTML 1.0 App. C) at least there is no competition whatsoever. - Geoffrey Sneddon
Received on Sunday, 28 January 2007 13:31:58 UTC