Re: Some portions of the specification treat XForms like a standalone document type from Martin Duerst on 2002-02-23 (www-forms-editor@w3.org from February 2002)

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 23:47:08 +0900
To: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>, "'www-forms-editor@w3.org'" <www-forms-editor@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20020223234333.03f316c0@localhost>

At 15:23 02/02/22 -0800, Micah Dubinko wrote:
>The Abstract for XForms 1.0 says:
>
>"XForms is not a free-standing document type, but is intended to be
>integrated into other markup languages, such as XHTML."

>* Does the linkage between XForms and a particular transport (such as HTTP
>GET, PUT, & POST) really make sense? Or should the XForms specification
>'exist in a vacuum', with specific bindings occurring at the level of
>specific document profiles (XHTML+XForms, etc.)

- Transport is another issue than document modularity. Of course,
   in both cases, you should look at extensibility, but independently.
- Saying that there may be other submission methods (e.g. email,...)
   may make sense. Designing the syntax so that this is possible
   makes sense. But leaving HTTP out would be very bad; there would
   again be a vacum with regards to character encoding, where XForms
   can really make a difference.

Regards,  Martin.

Received on Saturday, 23 February 2002 12:18:54 UTC