[whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2

[Geoffrey Sneddon]

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  
> vision.
>
> 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  
competition whatsoever.


- Geoffrey Sneddon