[whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2
foolistbar at googlemail.com
Sun Jan 28 13:31:58 PST 2007
On 28 Jan 2007, at 14:31, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
>> 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
>> different use-cases.
> FUD. FUD, FUD.
Which part of that is spreading either fear, uncertainty, or doubt,
or are you just misusing the acronym?
> The W3C is trying to drive the Web to XHTML. XForms is part of this
> Some people disagree with this and have formed the WhatWG to
> support classic HTML and a different kind of forms tech.
> The two technologies are in active competition. Maybe one will win.
> Maybe both will. Maybe neither. I don't know, and I'm not sure
> which I prefer to happen. Some days I prefer one. Some days the other.
> But don't kid yourself. They are absolutely competing with each
> other for market and mindshare, and that competition is only going
> to grow over the next year.
No, HTML and XHTML are competing – XForms MUST be in XHTML, so
thereby preventing anyone using HTML cannot use it. Within text/html
data (as to include XHTML 1.0 App. C) at least there is no
- Geoffrey Sneddon
More information about the whatwg