On 27 Jan 2007, at 02:17, Elliotte Harold wrote:
Matthew Raymond wrote:
"This specification is in no way aimed at replacing XForms 1.0
[XForms], nor is it a subset of XForms 1.0."
I agree that it's not a subset of XForms 1.0, but the first claim
is pure FUD. Web Forms 2.0 happened precisely because some people
didn't like XForms 1.0 and wanted to replace it with something they
liked better. I'm not saying they're wrong, or that their spec is
worse, but don't kid yourself about what's going on here.
It's not replacing it, as XForms 1.0 MUST be in an XML document,
whereas WF2 can be put in an HTML document. Both, IMO, have very
different use-cases.
- Geoffrey Sneddon
