Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > XPath is not used by web content authors enough to speak of, let alone > assert that it's friendly to them to support it.
The observation doesn't support the conclusion, and overlooks one of the biggest value of following standards. If you will study the example below, I think you may start to see why XForms is going to be extremely valuable. Implementing standards allows developers to do things (once) so that content authors don't have to do it on a per-page basis and sometime at all. As concerns XForms, once an XML Schema for a given topic of interest is established, XForms data entry mechanisms can be created to support it. Then the hoards of content authors can write simply include it -- so mom and pop who own a small business do not have to become XForms developers to become XForms users. Consider as an example, something like the newly released Universal Business Language "UBL" 1.0 standard from OASIS: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/cd-UBL-1.0/ By the way, this doc has a wonderful introduction which absolutely nails why standard XML schemas are soon to be disruptive technology. This standard defines, among other things, eight XML Schemas for the following entities: Order, Order Response Simple, Order Response (detailed), Order Change, Order Cancellation, Despatch Advice, Receipt Advice, Invoice. It also defines a standard procurement process. Some developer could easily write corresponding XForms pages for the different use cases associated with modifying these schemas. Eventually, any web author could reuse them, without really needing understand XPath, XML Schema, or XForms. XForms for UBL is already starting to be explored, by the way: http://xformsinstitute.com/ubl/ http://www.orbeon.com/oxf/examples/xforms-ubl _______________________________________________ mozilla-layout mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-layout
