[standards-jig] x:data and XML Forms

Ryan Eatmon reatmon at jabber.org
Sun Mar 31 02:29:11 UTC 2002

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 look.

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: http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0004.html
>>It would be interesting to see if we should bother with x:data or try to
>>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...


Ryan Eatmon                   reatmon at jabber.org 
Jabber.org - Perl Team    jid:reatmon at jabber.org

More information about the Standards mailing list