Re: XML Forms and XForms

I would first just like to thank Micah, Josef and Sebastian for their 
responsiveness on list. They set a great example to other W3C Working Groups! 
:)

In a message dated 30/10/01 07:20:27 GMT Standard Time, jth@dns.mikrobitti.fi 
writes:


> Since "xforms" isn't significantly longer than "xform", I think it would
> be proper to use "xforms" as the namespace prefix. There are no real
> drawbacks (aside of the one letter per reference size increase), but the
> spec will be clearer. As I see it, xforms:model (for example) can be read
> out just like that: "XForms model", while xform:model doesn't have such a
> natural connection to the spec. Why introduce yet another string of
> characters _for a technical purpose_, when you've already got
> "XForms"? The one character cannot be the reason, can it?

I wonder if "xform" is already the longest equal indicative namespace prefix 
for a W3C XML spec? The others that come immediately to mind are mostly two 
character or three character typically non-word strings.

XSLT - "xsl"
XSL-FO - "fo"
XSD Schema - "xsd"
XLink - "xlink"
SVG - "svg"

"xlink" and "xform" are the longest I can immediately think of. Is there a 
longer one?

If XForms had an "xforms" indicative namespace prefix would that make it the 
longest?

Answers on a postcard please. :)

As far as XForms goes it seems to me that an "xforms" indicative namespace 
prefix would be preferable if the term "XForm" is frowned on. But I agree 
with Jouni, XForm is likely to be widely used, even if viewed by some as not 
sufficiently technically accurate or precise.

Those of us to whom the separation of user interface and model is important 
might be horribly surprised by the notion (reality?) that to 99% of potential 
users of "XForms forms" what they are using is "just another form" ... an 
"XForm". :) They are only interested in the combined "thing" which a user 
interface and model produce together, I would suspect.

Andrew Watt