On 28 Jan 2007, at 14:31, Elliotte Harold wrote:
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
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.
FUD. FUD, FUD.
Which part of that is spreading either fear, uncertainty, or doubt,
or are you just misusing the acronym?
The W3C is trying to drive the Web to XHTML. XForms is part of this
vision.
Some people disagree with this and have formed the WhatWG to
support classic HTML and a different kind of forms tech.
The two technologies are in active competition. Maybe one will win.
Maybe both will. Maybe neither. I don't know, and I'm not sure
which I prefer to happen. Some days I prefer one. Some days the other.
But don't kid yourself. They are absolutely competing with each
other for market and mindshare, and that competition is only going
to grow over the next year.
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.
- Geoffrey Sneddon
