Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2

Hi Dean,

WF2 was considered harmful to XForms because it was developed without 
consideration of the use cases, intentions, architecture and methodologies 
of XForms.  The W3C process of delegating work that overlaps a working 
group to that working group and having new interested parties participate 
in that working group exists precisely to prevent this from happening.

A subset of XForms Tiny (which is only in formative stages now) is 
informed by and therefore similar to a subset of WF2.  They look similar 
to you because you have looked at a subset AND because the XForms group is 
trying in good faith to use WF2 as input to the process.  So, I would take 
your assessment to be a positive affirmation that the effort is succeeding 
at taking input from WF2.

XForms Tiny does differ from WF2 in some areas, like repetition and 
submission.  In these cases, we look at the WF2 approach as being the 
expression of a requirement for a simpler syntax.  So if we come up with a 
simpler syntax that we can happen to rationalize with the existing XForms 
architecture, then we meet the WF2 requirement while simultaneously 
providing a migration path to richer, more dynamic capabilities of full 
XForms.

Finally, note that the XForms Tiny work to date is a proof of concept, so 
the technical details will change further as the work proceeds.  For 
example, if there is no way to map a feature of XForms Tiny into XForms 
full, then one of tiny or full will be changed.  The expected result is a 
single framework for web forms development in which the feature set of 
XForms can be incrementally consumed by authors as their needs dictate.

John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Workplace Forms Architect and Researcher
Co-Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com  http://www.ibm.com/software/

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





Dean Jackson <dino@w3.org> 
Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org
02/04/2007 06:23 AM

To
Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
cc
"Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>, WHAT WG List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, 
www-forms@w3.org, public-appformats@w3.org
Subject
Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2







Apologies for the top post, but I have been wondering the same things 
as Matthew. As far as I can tell, XForms Tiny is very similar to Web 
Forms 2.0, yet Web Forms 2.0 was labeled as dangerous to, and 
incompatible with, XForms. Can we now assume that WF2 is acceptable 
to the XForms community? Why wasn't  XForms Tiny proposed as deltas 
to WF2?

Dean

On 24/01/2007, at 3:00 PM, Matthew Raymond wrote:

>
> Klotz, Leigh wrote:
>> That's reassuring.  So let's all take a look at Dave's proposals 
>> in that
>> light -- an HTML enhancement that maps more directly onto the 
>> concepts
>> that have been in the XForms Rec since 2003.
>
>    And yet I still haven't heard anyone explain to me why WF2 or a
> successor thereof can't accommodate these concepts. The justification
> for developing a _SEPARATE_ specification for enhancing web forms in
> HTML seems to be nonexistent. In fact, the spec even has huge overlaps
> with Web Forms 2.0, so one would think that amending the WF2 working
> draft to include more XForms-friendly features would be ideal, and yet
> here you are duplicating time and effort...For what?!?
>
>    What's more, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to even 
> explain why
> features from WF2 were left out or implemented differently in
> XForms-Tiny. Why use <input readonly>, for instance, and drop 
> <output>?
> Why make it next to impossible to use DHTML-based widgets with your
> repetition model? I bring up these problems and all I hear is the
> deafening sound of nobody saying anything.
>
>    One would almost get the impression that supporters of XForms-Tiny
> would rather write their own spec than engage in dialogue with the
> community that created Web Forms 2.0...