Re: Scope of the Forms Task Force

Hi Maciej,

Basically agreed on all points.  I cc'd the chairs.  Prior to last 
November, the Forms WG members have not been very active, though November 
onward nothing has happened in the task force.  To be fair though, the 
Forms WG TF participants have *perceived* that the work they have been 
pouring into understanding how to "flatten" the XForms MVC architecture 
into an "on the glass" syntax has constituted participation toward the 
goals of the task force.  The WG as a whole has basically been working 
flat out since Jan. on trying to make this integration work, and the fault 
of our TF members is that they did not communicate any of this.  And of 
course I just assumed it would be obvious they should be and I have not 
been on the list myself so I did not know until recently.  In hindsight, I 
should have checked, but I'm a little cross that this would be necessary 
for me to do.  Anyway, finally, yes I have just seen your post.  I will 
write a special note to the Forms WG to ask the task force to get onto 
commenting. 

Thanks,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Staff Member
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
Blog RSS feed: 
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw





Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 
04/03/2008 10:04 AM

To
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
cc
Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, 
www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Subject
Re: Scope of the Forms Task Force







John,

I am certainly hoping you will give the HTML WG Co-Chairs your point of 
view and they will give it due consideration. 

I will comment on one point you made:

On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:30 AM, John Boyer wrote:


As to your characterization of my participation as "active and forceful", 
I would like to juxtapose the word active with what the TF has been so 
far, which is inactive.  You're not doing any work, man.  So of course 
this will eventually catch the attention of at least one working group 
chair for whom the ill-named task *force* is supposed to be acting.  And 
it is then a simple matter of physics that *force* must be applied to 
change the state from inactive to active.  But the negative connotation on 
"forceful" is agitating because I deliberately did not join the TF because 
I wanted somebody besides me to do the work part. The problem is that it 
just isn't happening, and it is something that you should be directly 
involved in fixing and that five other people should be directly involved 
in fixing as well. 

For the record, yes, it's true, the Forms TF has not made great progress 
on its goals. I readily concede this. And this has been reported to the 
HTML WG Co-Chairs. However, I believe that of the activity there has been, 
most of it has been from the HTML WG representatives, Anne, Gregory and 
myself (for example, driving us to adopt a charter, requesting web space, 
etc.) Perhaps replacing one or more of the Forms WG members to the Forms 
TF would help matters.

Also, spurred on by your reminder of our duties, I have tried to start the 
discussion of architectural consistency, in line with the Forms TF's 
charter deliverable: <
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms-tf/2008Apr/0017.html>

Regards,
Maciej