- From: Jason Bell <jasebell@ntlworld.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:01:57 +0100
- To: <www-forms@w3.org>
Gerald, I'm still struggling to find the word "bloat" in the article... To be honest I agree with Amy, it's not a short learning curve. And if Sun say they have time contraints on implementation that doesn't mean NO. There's a good chance they'll come back and implement it later. In my opinion there's a long way to go for XForms yet. My initial experimentations have been hell. Lots of good ideas but an extreme lack of well documented examples. The best I've seen has been on the FormsPlayer site. Unless anyone can point me in a better direction. Jase Bell -----Original Message----- From: www-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Gerald Bauer Sent: 24 June 2004 00:23 To: www-forms@w3.org Subject: Sun Says No to XForms For Java Desktop Initiative Hello, Amy Fowler (Sun) explains in the Java Desktop Network Components (JDNC)whitepaper why W3C's XForms was ignored. Amy writes: What about XForms? When we implemented JDNC's basic form functionality, we looked at leveraging the XForms specification. While XForms is a well-designed specification that solves the numerous deficiencies in HTML forms, we were not convinced it would provide the ease-of-development and short learning curve we were after. Additionally, implementing XForms is a significant task which did not fit into our target schedule for going open source. That said, we intend to revisit this topic and are open to the opinions of the development community, as we know lots of brain power went into that spec. Source: https://jdnc.dev.java.net/documentation/overview.html What's your take on it? Do you agree with Amy that XForms is too bloated? - Gerald ------------------- Gerald Bauer XUL Alliance | http://xul.sourceforge.net United XAML | http://xaml.sourceforge.net The Thinlet World | http://thinlet.blog-city.com ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 04:10:27 UTC