[whatwg] some issues
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Jul 7 07:18:20 PDT 2004
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Matthew Raymond wrote:
> So, Web Forms 2.0 could be considered an XHTML module based on the Forms
> Module, while Web Apps 1.0 could be its own brand new XHTML module. Web
> Controls 1.0, however, doesn't seem to fit this at all.
Indeed. In fact Web Forms 2.0 even has an appendix defining its XHTML
module in detail.
> Secondly, why can't we just create a Web Forms 2.0 Mobile Profile?
There is one. It is the same as the desktop profile (i.e. the whole spec).
As we wrote in our position paper:
| Should there be a set of predefined compound document profiles (e.g.
| XHTML Basic + SMIL Basic + SVG Tiny)?
| No. Such documents are rarely useful as UAs do not generally limit
| themselves to particular profiles. If a specification is so large that
| it requires profiling and/or cannot be implemented on small devices,
| then it is a failing of the specification that should be solved by
| editing the complete spec, possibly simplifying or obsoleting some
> 3) Macromedia and Adobe have no interest supporting Web Forms because
> they both have competing products (Flash and SVG).
This was made quite clear at the Web Apps workshop.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg