[whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2
foolistbar at googlemail.com
Sat Jan 27 05:58:43 PST 2007
On 27 Jan 2007, at 02:17, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Matthew Raymond wrote:
>> "This specification is in no way aimed at replacing XForms 1.0
>> [XForms], nor is it a subset of XForms 1.0."
> I agree that it's not a subset of XForms 1.0, but the first claim
> is pure FUD. Web Forms 2.0 happened precisely because some people
> didn't like XForms 1.0 and wanted to replace it with something they
> liked better. I'm not saying they're wrong, or that their spec is
> worse, but don't kid yourself about what's going on here.
It's not replacing it, as XForms 1.0 MUST be in an XML document,
whereas WF2 can be put in an HTML document. Both, IMO, have very
- Geoffrey Sneddon
More information about the whatwg