- From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 23:12:18 -0700
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, www-archive@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF66D4D553.3F0E4F20-ON882572D0.001E9C44-882572D0.002216A2@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Dan, To answer your question: "For the record, how would you do the above in XForms? " in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1720.html I spent a number of hours on the IRC today with hixie, maciej, anne and the crew. It was excruciatingly fun. Before putting my foot in it, let me preface by saying once again that there are some good features in WF2; in fact, a number were discussed within the forms wg even before the what wg did its business, and what we lacked were people to do the work part, so I *really* wish they had just joined the wg. And again, I can see where the issue of tag soup became a blocking point on the html side, so it's water under the bridge. Anway, from the discussion I did also get a better idea of why WF2 deviated from XForms in some ways that look at first glance a little harder reconcile, e.g. things like the repeat structure being quite different. They seem to be absolutely bent on optimizing backwards compatibility even when it makes no sense to do so. Back comp I get, but the claim is that new features must be added only with old tags so that html4 browsers can "degrade gracefully". But this doesn't make any sense when adding a feature like a repeating table because it just isn't going to behaviorally work at all in the old browser. It's hard to see why we can't add new tags for new features, and esp. making those new tags look a bit more like the ones in the existing w3c rec for forms when it makes sense to do so. I spent a great deal of time dialoging on IRC [1] and [2] and at least it wasn't a complete disaster. It is worthwhile for you and Chris to have a look at the minutes as it will further clarify where I'm coming from. [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/05/02-html-wg-minutes.html [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/05/03-html-wg-minutes.html My main issue is that I cannot be the task force, nor can I be the Forms WG part of the task force. So I can't do the work of the task force in order to justify why the task force needs to do the technical work. The proposal you put to vote was premature and it shouldn't have been put to vote just because somebody proposed it because the proposal appears to run counter to both the statements and intent of the charters by preempting the technical work of the task force. By starting with a pre-baked technical solution, there will be no real room to compromise once it is taken as THE base of the work. Everyone talks a good game, but every move will have to be supported with some justification for why we should change it from what is already in WF2, rather than having an equal amount of asking why did WF2 change this from XForms. The only way to reach real compromise is to put everyone on an equal footing by staring with empty document and coming to terms on the requirements (in particular it seems like there is at least one requirement listed above that seems a bit contentious and will dramatically affect lots of technical decisions). A lot of people are unclear about what the two working groups have been chartered to do, and they continue to only read and spout off the one or two bits of this or that which best support their point of view, and ignore or throw out the rest by adopting a very loose definition of "work with each other". It's our job to guide everyone to the point of at least trying to work together. But it's not my job to do all the technical work in advance. Maciej complained today that my "objection" should be ignored because it doesn't cite technical reasons. But that's because the vote is not being taken on a technical issue. It is being taken on a process issue (should we preempt the work of the task force), and so my answer cited technical issues about the process. A major problem we face here is that the folks who are doing this would like every rule in the W3C process to be bent for them when it is convenient, but when it suits, they want the letter of the law to hold. It's pretty frustrating because the W3C process document is ill-equipped to handle this kind of working group. It is new, so there are going to be cases where analogies have to be made. The process document is primarily focused on WG members objecting to technical decisions made by vote, not process decisions. So when a vote happens about a process issue, it is a justifiable "technical" reason to object on the basis that the proposed process runs counter to the spirit of the working group charters. I hope all of this helps at least clarify why my vote went the way it did. I do sincerely hope that the chairs and/or the director are able to find a way to support this objection for now in the interest of getting the groups to really work together. If not, I really fear this collaboration will die before anyone gets a chance to even try a compromise, which is not at all what standards development is about. 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> 05/02/2007 07:09 PM To John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA cc www-archive@w3.org, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> Subject help navigating your HTML spec text objection? John, your objection includes... "... one of the XForms opponents even asked recently how a particular simple WF2 form would be written in XForms, so the objections are not even based on firm knowledge of XForms but rather on having developed WF2." -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results I'd appreciate a pointer to that message. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 06:12:27 UTC