Re: draft: forms task force volunteers? (tasks survey)

Hi Dan,

Actually, the original material you posted to me was a cut and paste from 
the HTML WG charter, and my response included some of that but I didn't 
make up a lot of new words.  They were cut and paste wordings from the 
Forms WG charter and the vision document, with enough glue words to make 
it reasonable. 

So, for example, the verbatim quote you asked for comes from 
http://www.w3.org/2007/03/html-forms-vision.html, 3rd option (the option 
selected by W3M), third paragraph.  This document reflects the W3M's 
understanding of what they wrote into the charters.

The 'enterprise markets' material is lifted from the Forms WG charter, 
first sentence (http://www.w3.org/2007/03/forms-charter.html).

Based on these sources, would you consider continuing to hone and refine 
the draft of text I sent earlier?

I think it is important that the call for participation should have a 
clear definition of what the task force is and what it is supposed to work 
on.  The more we can do earlier to communicate what we're chartered to do, 
the easier it will be for WG members to either get on board, express 
dissent or formally object. 

John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> 
04/27/2007 08:47 AM

To
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
cc
Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org
Subject
Re: draft: forms task force volunteers? (tasks survey)






On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 07:58 -0700, John Boyer wrote:
> 
> Hi Dan, 
> 
> I would like to have a bit more written about it, perhaps
> incorporating the combined text from the HTML WG charter, the Forms WG
> charter and the vision document
> (http://www.w3.org/2007/03/html-forms-vision.html).  How about this: 
> 
> ====================================== 
> The HTML Working Group and the Forms Working Group are chartered to
> work together on a Joint Task Force to define the Forms component of
> the next version of HTML. 
> 
> The charters calls for two equivalent serializations to be developed,
> corresponding to a single DOM (or infoset, though tag soup cannot be
> considered to have an infoset currently, while it can have a DOM).

I'm not inclined to paraphrase the charters. Is there a verbatim
quote that would make this point?


>  This ensures that decisions are not made which would not preclude an
> XML serialization. It allows the two serializations to be
> inter-converted automatically. Having new language features, there is
> an incentive for content authors to use it; and having client-side
> implementations means that there is the possibility to really use it.
> It is a goal of this work to make it possible for document authors to
> recognize and understand the tags of an HTML Form, whether or not it
> uses an XML serialization. 
> 
> The current W3C Recommendation for Forms, XForms 1.0, has found
> success at meeting the more complex demands of forms in the enterprise
> market, whereas the Web Forms 2 work was designed to emphasize ease of
> authoring requirements.

I don't know enough about XForms in the enterprise market to answer
follow-up questions that are likely to come from that.
I don't know the design rationale for Web Forms 2 either. So I'd
rather leave that out. Perhaps there's a verbatim quote about
the Web Forms 2 design rational?


>   It is a goal for this work to draw on the Web Forms 2 work to assist
> with meeting ease of authoring requirements while also being aligned
> to the XForms architecture (following design principles such as the
> separation of presentation from content). This new deliverable, the
> XML serialization of which has been termed XForms Transitional, will
> therefore offer ease of authoring as well as a smooth upgrade path
> towards XForms as complexities of the forms application grows over
> time. 

Again, I'm not inclined to make up new words about what the goals
are.

I still lean toward the simple style, but I'm happy to look
at other suggestions.

> ====================================== 
> 
> Cheers, 
> John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
> STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
> Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
> Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
> IBM Victoria Software Lab
> E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 
> 
> Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> 
> 
> 04/26/2007 02:39 PM 
> 
> 
>                To
> John
> Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA 
>                cc
> www-archive@w3.org, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> 
>           Subject
> draft: forms task
> force volunteers?
> (tasks survey)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had in mind something simple like this; what do you think, John?
> 
> 
> ---8<---
> Our charter calls for a joint task force with the Forms Working
> group...
> 
> "The HTML WG and the Forms Working Group will work together in this
> Task
> Force to ensure that the new HTML forms and the new XForms
> Transitional
> have architectural consistency and that document authors can
> transition
> between them"
> -- http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html
> 
> The HTML WG task survey includes a checkbox; please check it if
> you'd like to participate.
>  http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tasks83/
> 
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
> 
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E