I don't agree with you here: you cannot seriously convince people to use Woody if it doesn't provide the minimal "fancy features" that every other form framework provides. You won't convince anybody with flat inputs. We need tooltips, help popups, calendars, etc. But I also think the current field-styling.xsl has reached a size where it must be split into smaller units that everybody can assemble depending on their needs (see below).
I'm with you here. Let's face it, what people are and will be using Woody for is mainly HTML forms, and there's no way you can make a decent form-based application without *lots* of DHTML code. For example, in my current project we have forms with hundreds of fields, and having tabs is a huge usability improvement. So much that for an early prototype we developed our own "tabs" script on top of JXForms, but as soon as I saw Woody's tabs I threw the prototype away and restarted from scratch.
If there are problems with the current implementation, let's fix them and provide a standards-compliant DHTML-based toolkit for those who need it (like me ;-) ). If we want to create the best web application development platform in the world, we cannot provide only a server-side solution and tell people to do their homework on the client side. This isn't going to sell.
Let's not just provide something for the lowest common denominator (a.k.a. Netscape 4.X). We could do a simple stylesheet for people who just want a plain registration form for their guestbook, but I'd question the appropriateness of using Woody for that, the FormValidatorAction would work much better.
Just my 0.02€
Ugo
