- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:25:04 -0500
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org
On 12/13/05, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 03:19:25PM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > > "ACTION MarkB: rev RDF Forms spec w.r.t. feedback received here today; > > ETA: one month" > > -- http://swig.xmlhack.com/2005/10/05/2005-10-05.html#1128524113.602537 > > Company man that I am, I'd like to know more about:. > [[ > XForms; if XForms were done in RDF, gave everything a URI, and broke > from the general "form" container to the Container & Indexable > abstractions, it would look a whole lot like RDF Forms. > ]] > > Naturally, I'm keenly interested in reusing the conceptual model of > XForms if it's appropriate, and understanding why not if it's not. > > Is it awkward to cast RDF-Forms as a projection of XForms into RDF? > Doing that, we'd suddenly have a lot of spec written, significant > community review, and maybe XForms->RDFForms XSLTs* and even some > usable code. True enough. In fact, one of the changes I'm making for RDF Forms v2 will help make this simpler by permitting use of a single containing element. That wasn't to accomodate what you're talking about there, but instead to more easily support other (non GET & POST) HTTP methods, including those not yet deployed. e.g. instead of requiring; <rf:Container rdf:about="http://example.org/foo">... this semantically-identical equivalent could be used; <rf:Form rf:method="POST" rdf:about="http://example.org/foo"> > * could a normailzation of RDF Forms with a closed content model > make RDFForms->XForms XSLTs possible? Then there'd be tools that > could do the hard job of interacting with the user. > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/#implementations I don't know enough about XForms to say, but I bet something's doable along those lines. Mark.
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2005 15:25:31 UTC