- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:59:24 +0200
- To: "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:05:33 +0200, Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu> wrote: > On Thu 4/26/2007 3:29 PM Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> Web Forms 2 has taken as much features from XForms as possible to the >> extend that it is feasible to integrate the XForms features in a model >> that needs to be compatible with deployed HTML content and HTML >> implementations. > > [...] > > I see from the above that you are petitioning for a variance from the > "don't reinvent the wheel" aphorism, for the reason that it is > impossible to get there without a new kind of wheel. I'm not petitioning anything. I was just explaining why things were done the way they are. As far as design principles go, I think "graceful degradation", "pave the cowpaths", "evolution not revolution" and maybe "avoid needless complexity" are more relevant here than "don't reinvent the wheel". > I am then compelled, when presented with any such petition for variance > to ask "does it break the web?" It appears below that you believe the > burden of proof lies with prospective detractors rather than with > proponents: I'm not sure what you mean by this. As far as Web Forms 2 breaking the web, there has been one annoying case that broke a certain amount of pages. We noticed that during a alpha / beta release and got the specification and our implementation changed. >> This is why I think it would be useful if the people who prefer XForms >> Transitional because Web Forms 2 doesn't meet the architectural goals of >> XForms clarify what changes they would like to see made to Web Forms 2 >> that would bring it closer to those goals. > > Given that other XMLand other web technologies have come to depend on > XForms, what impact, if any, would HTML's variance from the zoning > ordinance have that might cause deterioration of the neighborhood? An > ISO 14000 approach would probably require that an environmental impact > statement be lodged concurrently with the nonconforming proposal. Have > all other WG's been properly notified of your intent to deviate from the > aphorism? Has proper time been allowed for a response? Have all concerns > of all affected stakeholders been addressed to the satisfaction of said > stakeholders? If not has form 7328Z been filed? HTML is not part of XMLland (or XMLand), I'm afraid. Regarding stakeholders etc., I think my message was an invitation to see if their concerns have been addressed or not. > Is that how the design principles will work? Frankly, I'd prefer a whole > lot less formality, than I fear the "manifesto" may promote. Let's try > an alternative approach: > > Anne, you're a smart and, I think, trustworthy person. In your opinion > will stuff that goes on in Webforms 2 cause grief to anything I need to > do in SVG? Or to anything else web-ish? I believe SVG's current spec has > a few promissory notes in it about stuff that is likely to be provided > by Xforms. If you tell me it doesn't affect SVG or other things, then I > can go back to my gentle repose. I'm not sure how it would affect SVG. Web Forms 2 and XForms are orthogonal in the sense that both specifications use different namespaces for their approach (in the DOM and XML serialization as far as Web Forms 2 goes) so you can safely use both. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 05:59:34 UTC