[whatwg] Suggestion: Implementation of Tabbed Forms

Jim Ley jim.ley at gmail.com
Sun Jul 4 05:16:28 PDT 2004

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 10:04:08 +0100, Malcolm Rowe
<malcolm-what at farsiderg.uk> wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
> >>   Personally, I'm beginning to think we shouldn't worry about IE. We
> >>could just tell everyone running IE with Javascript disabled that if
> >>they want to use Web Apps 1.0, they either need JS turned on or they
> >>need to get a standards compliant browser.
> > Your audience for WF-2 is not IE users, it's web form authors, they're
> > the people you have to provide something new, they demand IE
> > compatibility, indeed most couldn't care about anything other than IE.
> Matthew was talking specifically about the Web Applications spec, not
> about Web Forms 2.

Oh, so the audience for Web Applications, is not about for backwards
compatibility?    in that case there are other specs available to do
the job, no need to bother it.

>>   This is the main reason why WF2 is so unlikely to get even as much
>> use as XHTML1.1 (correctly used, not just cargo cult "it's better")
>> the degradation on the most important UA is frankly crap.
> I think there are already about as many publically available WF2 pages
> as there are XHTML1.1 pages 

Yep, and there are more XForms 1.0 implementations than any other W3
spec when it went to Rec.  It doesn't mean any of them are successful.
   There is certainly nothing remotely deployed and working using WF2,
even lots of the samples don't work in IE6.


More information about the whatwg mailing list