[whatwg] WebForms vs XForms
jim.ley at gmail.com
Fri Jan 7 03:39:21 PST 2005
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 07:45:51 +0100, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome at opera.com> wrote:
> I think you raise a valid point; ideally the specification will become
> smaller rather than larger from now on.
How? There are still lots of places that are under defined by my
reading, does this mean that there are features at risk that we'll
likely see removed, could we be told what they are?
> WF has similar dependencies on DOM
> but this seems less scary since DOM is already deployed.
WF also has dependencies on completely unspecified or under specified
HTML that rather than being specified at all are being relied on to be
"what browsers are doing at the moment" I agree the page count
comparison was a cheeky one when the explicit dependencies are
included, but it would be nice to see the HTML you're building on well
defined before it's built on.
> Perhaps. Personally, I don't hear the thunder.
I'd be interested as to where you see the thunder for the Web Forms
stuff, as outside this list I mostly here boredom or derision.
More information about the whatwg