I have some doubts about the XForms Tiny initiative from an implementors
perspective. That the XForms working group will propose an additional
syntax is not desirable for authors or the implementations we create and
will not provide any benefits for us. To me it is clear that the
segments interested in XForms and in Web Forms 2 are different and that
there should be no problems in having two different standards.
I have written a blog entry about this
(http://landwehr.dk/blog/2007/02/xforms_xforms_tiny_and_web_for_1.html)
where I also publish a mail I wrote to the working group.
Best regards,
David
Dean Jackson skrev:
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...
