On Sep 4, 2006, at 10:51, Mark Seaborne wrote:
Moreover, with the appendix C guidelines for XHTML combined with
making the important ease-of-authoring changes to XForms that
*are* what we need to harvest from WF2
If XForms is "harvesting" stuff from WF2, what's in it for WF2?
Come on now people, the W3C is _not_ a school playground!
So rather than "What's in it for WF2?"
I apologize for my ill-formulated phrasing.
There *is* a technical point there, though:
1. "Can XForms and WF2 be combined into a single spec to the
benefit of the Web?" I think that is the gist of IBM's statement.
To which I really hope the answer will be "Yes."
It depends greatly on whether such unified spec omits features that
already exist in XForms. However, removing features is unlikely. A
significant part of the value proposition of WF2 is that it is
simpler than XForms. I fail to see how a union of XForms and WF2
could be simpler than either individually.
So to rephrase the question:
How could the unification be accomplished without defeating a
significant part of the essence and value proposition of WF2?
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
