On May 5, 2007, at 4:41 PM, John Boyer wrote:
Maciej,
mjs> You've stated that you are unwilling to drop your Formal
Objection
unless you get exactly what you asked for. Since I disagree that what
you asked for is good, if you are unwilling to budge, I don't see how
compromise is possible. Unless you think compromise consists of me
just agreeing with your existing position.
I think what you want is that WF2 be used as *the* basis for
review. What I want is that XForms also be
used as *a* basis for review along with WF2.
I don't think it makes sense to adopt XForms as a basis for review
and further editing for the following reasons:
- It is a W3C standard being actively maintained by another working
group.
- It defines a wholly separate language in a different namespace.
- It defines elements and attributes which, if placed in the HTML
namespace, would be incompatible with existing HTML elements with the
same names.
For these reasons, it cannot as-is be a basis for anything in HTML.
It would be like adopting SVG or MathML as a basis for review - even
if we wanted to add graphics or math capabilities to HTML, it would
not be right to start by appending those specs to the end of the HTML
spec. Instead, selective features would be moved and recast as parts
of HTML, instead of separate languages.
We also know based on past experience that XForms is unacceptable to
browser implementors. However, the XForms working group declined so
far to take that feedback into account in the XForms spec. Adopting
something as a starting point that is known to be unacceptable to
many of the likely high-volume implementors seems like an
unproductive way to proceed, as we'd have lots of work to do to
remove the problems before we had anything publishable.
My original position was that the HTML WG should completely ignore
XForms and the Forms Task Force. However, I have moved to a
compromise position that I think is a reasonable middle ground, as
described below.
Possible sound ways to proceed to include more XForms capabilities in
HTLM Forms would be:
1) Adopt as a basis for review something based on XForms but that is
rewritten to be a set of HTML elements, and with incompatibilities
with classic HTML removed. However, no one has written a document
like that, and we don't have time to wait for it to be written. So I
don't think this is a practical option.
2) Consider XForms as a potential source of designs for additions to
HTML Forms, without literally adopting the text. WF2 already did this
to a large extent, but I am seeing it happening even more, such as
with the review and likely revision of the repetition feature.
3) Define more clearly what we mean by architectural consistency, so
regardless of the starting point we know that the endpoint satisfies
the requirements.
I expect #2 will happen regardless of official decision by the group,
but I would not object to making it a formal resolution of the group.
I already proposed a way to do #3. I think these are reasonable
middle grounds between adopting the text of XForms and completely
ignoring it. Do you have other possible compromise proposals?
Your other Formal Objection was to Dave and Ian as editors, and your
proposed alternative is to add someone from the Forms WG as a co-
editor for the Forms section. I also disagree with that, as I think
it would lead to a lot of arguing and slow down work; and because I
think editors should be chosen based on their qualifications and
experience, not based on being members of an external Working Group.
My proposed compromise for that is that the HTML WG and Forms WG
together in the Forms Task Force co-edit a Forms Architectural
Consistency Requirements document which XForms and HTML Forms both
then satisfy. I think this will accomplish the desire for closer
alignment with less likelihood of conflict delaying progress. Do you
have a different proposed compromise?
Your writings imply you believe I am being rigid and exclusionary;
this makes no sense given that what
I want includes what you want and what you want excludes what I want.
I think what you want is impractical - concatenating WF2 and XForms
does not result in a single specification that we can edit further.
However, XForms should definitely be mined as a source for feature
ideas that can be cast into a more HTML-friendly form.
You can feel free to publish this to the list if you like, but it
seemed unimportant to bore the whole group
with this until we can sort out between us why you and I are not
seeing eye to eye.
I cc'd www-archive for the record.
Regards,
Maciej
