- From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:30:02 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>, public-appformats@w3.org, public-appformats-request@w3.org, WHAT WG List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, www-forms@w3.org
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Jon Ferraiolo wrote: > > Hi Dave, > Thanks for the update. Given that XF-T has already proven to run > on today's browsers, no matter how the W3C ends up reconciling > XF-T vs WF2, it seems to me that a MUST requirement is that the > result of this XF-T vs WF2 reconciliation should be technology > that can be implemented via a small JavaScript library such that > it can run on top of today's browsers. > > It would also be nice if: > > 1) There was a highly modular open source implementation of this > new (XF-T vs WF2) technology which could be added as a module to > the many fine Ajax libraries that exist in the world. > 2) There was some attention to make sure that this new (XF-T vs > WF2) technology were designed to integrate well with HTML/Ajax > IDEs so that developers can create and debug their applications > using modern software development approaches, such as WYSIWYG > developer tools and integrated debuggers. > > Jon Both sound like excellent suggestions, and I would be interested in exploring them further, preferably in collaboration with people who know much more about Ajax IDEs than I do. p.s. I think that it isn't a question of XF-T vs WF2, but rather a synthesis of the best of both proposals. I will be exploring this on the public wiki maintained by the W3C Forms working group over the next month or so. Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Received on Thursday, 18 January 2007 18:30:24 UTC