[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 - what does it extend , definition of same, relation to XForms, implementation reqs.

Jim Ley jim.ley at gmail.com
Sat Jan 8 15:53:32 PST 2005

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:50:52 +0100, Olav Junker Kjær <olav at olav.dk> wrote:
> Thefore it must be possible to implement the WHAT specs on top of
> Internet Explorer, using only non-binary extensions. XHTML, SVG, XForms
> etc. is simply out of the picture, although we might all agree that they
> are technically better for building rich applications.

The problem with this argument is that you're pretty much saying "we
can't build a browser as good as IE"  If you can do it in script in
IE, we don't need web-forms, we'll just do it in script, if we can
only do it in script at the moment in IE, then that's a huge
limitation in these other UA's and they really should focus on getting
them up to standard and not waste their time trying to get everyone
else to author differently to cater for the less capable user agents.

Because the technology is solving nothing that hasn't already been
solved in script (by your own definition above), what's the motivation
for it?  Web Applications are almost all script only currently, so
authors obviously aren't concerned about using script.


More information about the whatwg mailing list