: Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2
Elliotte Harold wrote:
Matthew Raymond wrote:
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...
Hello, Pot
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
At http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2003Oct/0028 you can
see a report I made on 2003 October in which I first encountered this
work. I was looking for XForms Basic, the name of a Working Draft
from the W3C Forms Working group, and
Raymond; WHAT WG List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
At http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2003Oct/0028 you
can
see a report I made on 2003 October in which I first encountered this
work. I
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
No, HTML and XHTML are competing – XForms MUST be in XHTML, so thereby
preventing anyone using HTML cannot use it. Within text/html data (as to
include XHTML 1.0 App. C) at least there is no competition whatsoever.
But anyone using HTML can use XHTML instead. If
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
Matthew Raymond:
Klotz, Leigh wrote:
Explain to me why Web Forms 2.0 shouldn't be incorporating more of
the great ideas in XForms-Tiny rather than the other way around. Why is
your approach to cannibalize an existing W3C working draft to enrich a
draft you haven't even finished yet? What, in
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
PROTECTED]
Cc: WHAT WG List
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:02:57 -0500, Elliotte Harold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One would almost get the impression that supporters of XForms-Tiny
would rather write their own spec than engage in dialogue
Klotz, Leigh wrote:
If Opera had wanted to engage, it would have done so in the many
previous years, and if Opera had concerns about the direction of XForms
(or even XHTML (or even XML)) it would have done so at the charter and
requirements document stages. Not doing so was a business
: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2
Klotz, Leigh wrote:
If Opera had wanted to engage, it would have done so in the many
previous years, and if Opera had concerns about the direction of
XForms
(or even XHTML (or even XML)) it would have done so at the charter and
requirements document stages
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, James Graham wrote:
Sorry, was I reading the same document as you? I saw a list of technical
problems that Apple and Opera identified...
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
You did see some technical objections that Opera raised, but please
check to see any
Klotz, Leigh wrote:
Explain to me why Web Forms 2.0 shouldn't be incorporating more of
the great ideas in XForms-Tiny rather than the other way around. Why is
your approach to cannibalize an existing W3C working draft to enrich a
draft you haven't even finished yet? What, in your opinion,
Elliotte Harold wrote:
Matthew Raymond wrote:
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...
Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black.
See this URL:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:02:57 -0500, Elliotte Harold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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...
Hello, Pot? This
James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2007-01-24 15:33 +:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (W3C
Member-only)
Anne is it possible to summarise the content of that message? Citing
sources we can't follow up is _really_ irritating :)
I think the following
Or what makes you want to cannibalize an existing W3C Recommendation
which predates the formation of WHAT-WG?
Explain to me why Web Forms 2.0 shouldn't be incorporating more of
the great ideas in XForms-Tiny rather than the other way around. Why is
your approach to cannibalize an existing W3C
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:51:55 -0500, Klotz, Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Or what makes you want to cannibalize an existing W3C Recommendation
which predates the formation of WHAT-WG?
I don't think most people in the WHATWG see it as a XForms versus Web
Forms 2 match or something. I don't
, January 23, 2007 10:58 AM
To: Klotz, Leigh; Matthew Raymond; Dave Raggett
Cc: WHAT WG List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; public-appformats@w3.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:51:55 -0500, Klotz, Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Or what makes you want
Dave Raggett wrote:
From your comments, you seem to be very confident of your scripting
skills, [...]
Not really. It may be the case that others could code the same kind
of scripting in a clearer and more compact form.
[...] and would have no problem in emulating my examples on top of
Hi Matthew,
The idea behind XForms-Tiny is to build on the strengths of both Web
Forms 2.0 and XForms, and to incorporate ideas from both. I took a
very practical approach to that by seeing how far I could get with a
cross-browser library that works on as many as possible of today's
browsers
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Jon Ferraiolo wrote:
I have a very simple question from the land of Ajax (and OpenAjax
Alliance). Can either XForms-Tiny or WF2 be implemented in
JavaScript such they run on today's browsers, or do they both
require new version of browsers (or plugins) to ship before the
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
Dave Raggett wrote:
Dean Jackson suggested I write up a brief comparison of XForms-Tiny
and WebForms 2.0. You can find this on the Forms wiki at:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms-Tiny
WF2 and XForms-Tiny both involve incremental extensions to HTML
forms as defined in
23 matches
Mail list logo
