- From: Mark Seaborne <mseaborne@origoservices.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 13:56:26 +0100
- To: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>, <www-forms@w3.org>
Hi Andrew, Well, I agree that Microsoft and Adobe do development tools well. However, they do have one major drawback, and that is that they are hopeless for authoring XForms. At the conference yesterday Novell (exteNd) and Focus (XFormation) demo'ed their authoring tools, and whilst I would agree that they have ample room for improvement, both are very usable and lay a more than acceptable foundation for the future. There are other tools available now, like OnForm Xpress from Black Dog, and I know of several that are being worked on. It was also demonstrated yesterday that XForms can be authored indirectly. An organisation in the UK (Polaris) has built a portal that uses XForms, but all of the forms (and WSDL too incidentally) are automatically generated from annotated schemas. Personally I prefer a decent text editor, so I do most of my authoring in Macs. I realise that typing code directly won't be everyone's cup to tea (or coffee for that matter), but certainly for smaller projects, it really is no hardship. XForms is pretty readable on the whole, after all. In fact it is nice to use a markup that is usable without having to hide behind pretty authoring tools all the time (alas the same cannot really be said of W3C XML Schema). With regards to multiple XForms processors popping up all over the place, well I think that is important to help in the efforts to improve the XForms spec. We will always need many processors, because there are so many platforms that will require XForms support. I don't think it is a problem that we have several implementations for the same platform. All of the vendors are committed to achieving a high degree of interoperability, and this can only be achieved if the spec is clear. We can only know if the spec is well written, and works, if there are many implementations. If implementations achieve the goal of interoperability, then it doesn't matter if there are many for the same platform, if they don't, then we work on the spec. some more, or the implementers fix bugs. No one wants an XForms equivalent to browser wars. Many vendors are talking to each other very openly about implementation decisions, and where necessary these are feeding back into the development process. I think it is fair to talk of a growing community of XForms implementers at the moment. Obviously they are very aware that they need to compete with each other, equally obviously, they are very aware that they must not compete over their implementation of XForms itself. At the moment vendors are focusing on getting XForms onto the client, because no one will author XForms if no one can use XForms. No one will make very much money unless XForms becomes ubiquitous. Companies like Novell and x-port make their plug-ins free so that they can make money off the back of related products and services. Clearly there can, theoretically, still be rubbish implementations ;-) All the best Mark -- The information in this email is sent in confidence for the addressee only and may be legally privileged. Unauthorised recipients must preserve this confidentiality and should please advise the sender immediately of the error in transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on its content is prohibited and may be unlawful. Origo Services Ltd accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from the use of this email or the contents. > From: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com> > Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 07:46:43 EDT > To: <www-forms@w3.org> > Cc: <XForms@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: XForms product news > Resent-From: www-forms@w3.org > Resent-Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 07:47:40 -0400 (EDT) > > In a message dated 07/04/2004 12:11:31 GMT Daylight Time, > mseaborne@origoservices.com writes: > >> Hi, >> >> As some of you know the company I work for, Origo Services (b-to-b, XML >> standards body for UK Life Insurance) ran a one day conference on XForms >> yesterday. >> >> I just wanted to quickly mention one or two product related things were >> mentioned that I thought might be of general interest. >> >> Firstly, David Boloker, IBM's CTO of Emerging Technologies told us that IBM >> has begun work on implementing XForms native in Mozilla (though he did say >> that it will take a _really_ long time to do). David also mentioned that >> they are also working on XForms support in WebSphere Portal Server, Lotus >> Workplace and Pervasive Computing. >> >> Secondly, Novell demo'ed an IE plug-in that they are working on. No release >> date was given, but we were told that it will be a free download when it is >> ready. >> >> All the best >> >> Mark >> > > Mark, > > A practical question. Do you envisage that all XForms plugins for Internet > Explorer will be equal? > > What is the benefit for the XForms community of having several viewers? I can > see a benefit if one particular viewer is visibly substandard but if one > assumes the existence of a complete and conforming XForms viewer for Internet > Explorer what is the need for another? > > I can see a much more evident gap in the market for XForms design tools than > in the market for XForms viewers. A couple of competent, usable XForms design > tools are now around but, in my view at least, have some distance to go to > catch up with Microsoft's InfoPath and Adobe's XML/PDF Designer as XML-based > forms > design tools. I am not knocking the XForms design tools but Microsoft and > Adobe are not beginners at the job of creating good tools. And that experience > shows. > > Thoughts? > > Andrew Watt >
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 08:57:07 UTC