Or what makes you want to cannibalize an existing W3C Recommendation which predates the formation of WHAT-WG? > Explain to me why Web Forms 2.0 shouldn't be "incorporating more of the great ideas" in XForms-Tiny rather than the other way around. Why is your approach to cannibalize an existing W3C working draft to enrich a draft you haven't even finished yet? What, in your opinion, makes WF2 unsalvageable?
- Re: Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2 Matthew Raymond
- Re: Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2 Jon Ferraiolo
- Re: Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2 Dave Raggett
- Re: Comparison of XForms-Tiny and W... Jon Ferraiolo
- Re: Comparison of XForms-Tiny a... Dave Raggett
- Re: Comparison of XForms-T... John Boyer
- Re: Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2 Steven Pemberton
- Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and ... Dave Raggett
- Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny ... Matthew Raymond
- RE: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-T... Klotz, Leigh
- Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XFor... Anne van Kesteren
- RE: [whatwg] Comparison of... Klotz, Leigh
- Re: [whatwg] Compariso... Matthew Raymond
- Re: [whatwg] Compa... Dean Jackson
- Re: [whatwg] Compa... John Boyer
- Re: [whatwg] Compa... David Landwehr
- Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XFor... Matthew Raymond
- Re: [whatwg] Comparison of... Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer
