[standards-jig] x:data and XML Forms

Max Metral Max.Metral at peoplepcHQ.com
Tue Apr 2 20:12:10 UTC 2002

And so you're recommending building something entirely different in the
meantime?  How is that better than implementing something "inspired by"
their standard?

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Muldowney [mailto:temas at box5.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:57 PM
To: standards-jig at jabber.org
Subject: RE: [standards-jig] x:data and XML Forms

I have a few problems.  First, I'm not a big fan of only partially
implementing a standard.  This creates situations like Netscape and IE
for HTML.  The standard is a standard as a whole, not in pieces.  If it
marks portions as optional, fine don't implement those, but if it's not
optional, you need to support it.  Which ties into my other main
concern, if we look at the XForms spec as posted in the last call
working draft I'm not seeing it flag bindings and multiple forms in a
document as optional.  This means we probably need to understand XPath
more complete in clients as well as the server.  It also adds a lot more
namespace usage, which we're still struggling to figure out how to

While this may be useful in the future (read: once it's an official
standard), I think we need to be realistic about what we can go forward
with in the now.

Food for thought


On Sat, 2002-03-30 at 23:06, Max Metral wrote:
> I don't claim to be knowledgeable on this particular subject, but just a
> suggestion (i.e. discard at will).  If there are PARTS of XForms you need,
> even if they don't meet a "basic" package standard, it would seem BETTER
> use our own definition of a subset XForms rather than inventing a new
> thing...  That way we at least have a SHOT that XForms tools and software
> can work with it, and people can implement the "basic" version at their
> whim, rather than being in a totally different ballpark.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Missig [mailto:julian at jabber.org]
> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 9:55 PM
> To: standards-jig at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [standards-jig] x:data and XML Forms
> Ok, cool. After reading more of XForms and hearing this I'm satisfied.
> ;)
> Even though XForms claims to try to work with all the GUI situations we
> want to be working with, it quickly became apparent that you have to
> implement a *lot* even to comply with XForms Basic (all the XPath stuff
> and events, etc)... most of which it seems we don't want right now.
> Thanks
> Julian
> On Sat, 2002-03-30 at 21:29, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
> > 
> > We looked into XForms, and a few other XML based GUI things, before 
> > coming up with x:data.  The problem is that we needed something that is 
> > data gathering only and not a GUI definition.  Remember that this 
> > solution needs to work across all clients, no matter the interface they 
> > use.  So XForms is overkill.  And trying to scope the Data Gathering to 
> > a subset of XForms is not practical either.  It's like trying to say 
> > that we need a screw driver, and giving people a swiss army knife.  You 
> > just begging to abuse the purpose behind this idea.
> > 
> > Here's my own personal two cents.  There are two ways to approach a JEP 
> > and adding new things into Jabber.  You can scope out a specific problem

> > and target a solution that solves what you want.  Or you can propse a 
> > general idea and spend a long, long time trying to come up with a 
> > solution that fits every conceivable future use.
> > 
> > We chose to tackle the idea of gathering data and not defining the 
> > actual GUI form, hence the change of name from x:form to x:data.  When 
> > you start opening the can of worms of GUI definition you quickly have a 
> > slew of issues and ideas that everyone and their dog wants to solve. 
> >  And so you need a solution like XForms.  If somone else want to tackle 
> > the GUI definition and make it work for all Client types, then feel 
> > free.  All I wanted was a better way of gathering data, and I feel that 
> > x:data gives us just that.
> > 
> > Our thought was that it would be possible to use XForms to define how 
> > the form looks, while x:data defines how the asker wants the data to
> > 
> > Julian Missig wrote:
> > 
> > >On Sat, 2002-03-30 at 15:20, Julian Missig wrote:
> > >
> > >>Is anyone here at all familiar with w3c's XML Forms? I haven't looked
> > >>into them at all, but I was curious as to how they compare with what
> > >>we're trying to do with x:data:
> > >>
> > >>It would be interesting to see if we should bother with x:data or try
> > >>use XML Forms.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Anyway, after a cursory overview it looks to me like XForms is doing
> > >what we're trying to do with x:data, although naturally it includes a
> > >lot more complicated features. I think it definitely merits some
> > >investigation before we all decide x:data is ok...
> > >
> > >Julian
> > >
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig

Standards-JIG mailing list
Standards-JIG at jabber.org

More information about the Standards mailing list