Re: [whatwg] WF2: Non-validating submit buttons
Hi, From: Kornel Lesinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Saving incomplete forms is a recommendation in cite isbn=0-7357-1410-X ;) Devensive Design for the Web/cite which provides www.bankone.com as an example site that saves incomplete applicatios (I don't know however if that's via save button or just up to the last completed step). Ok. IMHO non-validating button makes sense for saving drafts of various kinds (webmail, blog post, wiki page). Another use-case is a preview button. Example: comment submission on a blog. You may require users to fill-in their name and e-mail address, but these fields aren't neccessary to display a preview of text formatting. Although if a preview is forced then the fields are in fact not required, but I know that some blogs have both Post and Preview available but I don't know of any that differentiate between fields being required or not required (client-side) for submitting the form using the different submit buttons. I agree though that it would be useful. Regards, Simon Pieters _ Tjäna pengar - sälj på auktion http://tradera.msn.se/
Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2
Uh huh, a last call comment posted 3 years after the group was formed, when Opera, a W3C member, had not participated in the development of charter, requirements, working draft, candidate recommendation, or proposed recommendation. Opera certainly has its own business interests to protect, and I can understand how with its business built around IE 5 bug compatibility for cell phones, any spec that deviates from incremental extensions to that is a threat to both its intellectual property and a promised lowering of barriers to entry to its market. If Opera had wanted to engage, it would have done so in the many previous years, and if Opera had concerns about the direction of XForms (or even XHTML (or even XML)) it would have done so at the charter and requirements document stages. Not doing so was a business decision, and I can't argue with that. But please don't confuse those business decisions with technical objections, of which there were none expressed. So, on that note, as I said before, I'm pleased that there is a potential for engaging on work with Web Forms 2.0, XForms Tiny and XForms to develop a consistent set of features build on common concepts, and with different syntaxes that appeal to a wide range developers and authors. Many hand-coding HTML authors will like the XForms Tiny and Web Forms 2.0 attribute-rich syntaxes with everything in one place. Many authors who use object or database systems (including Java libraries, PHP libraries, UI frameworks, etc) will enjoy the ability to separately declare the data values, constraints/logic/types, and presentation. Trying to get these two groups of developers and authors to agree isn't goin to happen. But as meta-level designers, people like you and I need to be able to agree on the concepts tha feed into these two different models of the world, and then synthesize some syntaxes that don't generate cognitive dissonance in the end users. Bottom line: XML isn't going away. HTML with lotsa attributes isn't going away. The separation between data, logic, and presentation in large web projects isn't going away. JavaScript isn't going away. And unless we start working together, the big mess isn't goin away either. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:30 AM To: Elliotte Harold; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: WHAT WG List Subject: Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2 On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:02:57 -0500, Elliotte Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One would almost get the impression that supporters of XForms-Tiny would rather write their own spec than engage in dialogue with the community that created Web Forms 2.0... Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (W3C Member-only) -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2
Klotz, Leigh wrote: If Opera had wanted to engage, it would have done so in the many previous years, and if Opera had concerns about the direction of XForms (or even XHTML (or even XML)) it would have done so at the charter and requirements document stages. Not doing so was a business decision, and I can't argue with that. But please don't confuse those business decisions with technical objections, of which there were none expressed. Sorry, was I reading the same document as you? I saw a list of technical problems that Apple and Opera identified... -- Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end? -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2
You did see some technical objections that Opera raised, but please check to see any comments Opera made in the preceeding years and you will not see these issues raised. Questions about whether the separation of data and presentation is valuable or not should are questions about goals. Opera did not raise these objections during the setting of requirements, nor during the charter development. To come along the day before the spec is published with a passel of technical objections is clearly a political ploy, and while Opera is certainly welcome to pursue its business any way it chooses, as technical people we have to see past it. Certainly it's fine for Opera to want incremental extensions to HTML, and to want to keep the on the glass approach rather than the three-layer model approach. But ignoring the entire Forms Working Group for years and then raising a bunch of issues at the last minute (some real, some questions of goals, some pure smoke) is not a technical approach. It is a political one and has to be recognized as such. So, please, let's get back to trying to figure out how we can have a small number of syntaxes and a small number of models and get them to have some commonality, and leave the political theatre of September 2003 to rest. -Original Message- From: James Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:01 AM To: Klotz, Leigh Cc: Anne van Kesteren; Elliotte Harold; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WHAT WG List Subject: Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2 Klotz, Leigh wrote: If Opera had wanted to engage, it would have done so in the many previous years, and if Opera had concerns about the direction of XForms (or even XHTML (or even XML)) it would have done so at the charter and requirements document stages. Not doing so was a business decision, and I can't argue with that. But please don't confuse those business decisions with technical objections, of which there were none expressed. Sorry, was I reading the same document as you? I saw a list of technical problems that Apple and Opera identified... -- Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end? -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, James Graham wrote: Sorry, was I reading the same document as you? I saw a list of technical problems that Apple and Opera identified... On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Klotz, Leigh wrote: You did see some technical objections that Opera raised, but please check to see any comments Opera made in the preceeding years and you will not see these issues raised. [...] Could I please ask that the WHATWG list be taken off the distribution list for this discussion? I'm very happy to see technical issues discussed here, and am very happy to see the pros and cons of various features be discussed, but arguing over who should be working with whom is not helping anyone. What would be really useful from the XForms-Tiny viewpoint is if someone could write a summary of the spec for XForms-Tiny. Dave tells me that he is working on one. If this work in progress could be made public, it would be a great help. Some of the ideas in the XForms-Tiny examples look interesting, but without seeing the overall model they really are not clear enough to use as feedback on the Web Forms 2 W3C working draft. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2
Klotz, Leigh wrote: 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? Or what makes you want to cannibalize an existing W3C Recommendation which predates the formation of WHAT-WG? Are you trying to justify hypercannibalization?!? Or are you just trying to cover up the fact that XForms and WF2 don't occupy the same niche, but XForms-Tiny and WF2 do?
Re: [whatwg] Comparison of XForms-Tiny and WF2
Elliotte Harold wrote: Matthew Raymond wrote: One would almost get the impression that supporters of XForms-Tiny would rather write their own spec than engage in dialogue with the community that created Web Forms 2.0... Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. See this URL: http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#r-to-xforms This specification is in no way aimed at replacing XForms 1.0 [XForms], nor is it a subset of XForms 1.0. Where can I read a similar statement about XForms-Tiny not replacing WF2? Pot calling the kettle black? Bullsh*t!
