[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 - what does it extend , definition of same, relation to XForms, implementation reqs.
mattraymond at earthlink.net
Tue Jan 4 22:02:42 PST 2005
Jim Ley wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 09:15:46 -0500, Matthew Raymond
> <mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> ??? Okay, let me get this straight. Browsers MUST support
>>client-side XSLT because a couple of guys did some really interesting
>>work with it?
> I can't understand how you went from what I wrote to that conclusion.
> The issue at hand was whether sending FooML was good or bad, I was
> trying to illustrate it was irrelevant question as there's no need to
> send FooML, there's mark-up languages with known semantics.
To a browser that doesn't support Well Known Markup Language (WKML),
WKML=FooML. Furthermore, since you didn't specify the nature of the XSLT
research you mentioned, how an I to know what you are trying to convey?
That was the whole point of the "???". I couldn't make heads or tails of
what you meant.
>> I'd also like to point out that webmasters have far more control on
>>the quality and reliability of server-side XSLT than they do for
> I have no idea what triggered this rant on XSLT,
Perhaps the words "work on XSLT transformations"...
> I would never use it
> on the client, but that wasn't the issue at hand, I was simply using
> it as an illustration of successful delivery of known XML semantics
I attempted to Google Masahide Kanzaki and Morten Friedrichsons. I
only got results on the first name, which seems to have something to do
with styling RDF files using XSLT. It's nice to be able to style XML
documents like that, but it's most useful when the XML document might
actually be used by some browsers in its original, raw form. If most
browsers aren't going to support the raw XML, then sending the XML "over
the wire" does more to expose your server architecture than it does to
benefit the end user.
> As we're discussing the future, it seems odd that people are
> wishing to hobble next generation user agents with what is already
> used today bases on straw man arguments on FooML.
Perhaps it's not so much a straw man argument so much as a
miscommunication as to what the topic being discussed actually is.
>> If you feel that specific elements and attributes could be added to
>>WF2 to decrease the use of complicated scripting,
> I don't, I don't see the point of Web Forms at all as currently
> proposed, they don't go far enough to be useful if they're not
> supported everywhere, which they won't be simply because IE6 users
> won't be upgraded in their lifetimes unless binary plugins are used
> (which is Bill's original point in the thread)
This argument could be used for any solution that Internet Explorer
doesn't support out-of-the-box, and it ignores the benefits of being
able to leverage webmasters' knowledge of HTML, as well as the fact that
the WF2 markup can degrade into a form that is still reasonably usable
in HTML 4.01 user agents. Even if you accept this argument, you must
acknowledge the fact that there are multiple methods of deployment (pure
would be impractical for a specification like XForms.
>>paragraph-long run-on sentence wastes the time of an
> It's interesting that people always go on about accessibilty and how
> important it is that everything is available to all, yet when someone
> who has difficulty writing attempts to join the discussion, all you do
> is try to belittle them.
One comment about a run-on sentence does not make a conspiracy to
oppress the grammatically challenged of the WHATWG mailing list.
>> What, _specifically_, is "it"? Why would IE with working WF2 support
> I assume you saw Dean Edwards attempt at a Behavior that implemented a
> tiny part of the Web Forms 2.0 specification? It was a lot of
It's been out of date for months, and it barely tops 5KB.
Furthermore, if there's already an HTC that people can reuse, how is
that _additional_ scripting on the webmaster's part?
More information about the whatwg