MartyConnelly
martyconnelly at shaw.ca
Fri Feb 20 16:09:48 CST 2004
I didn't know anyone had created a browser addin yet. Interesting was waiting for that rather than using old XSL-FO Gustav Brock wrote: >Hi those of you interested in XForms. > >I noted these comments and useful links on the present status of >XForms which might be of interest for some of you. >I'm quoting as the letter is not on-line yet. > ><quote> > >The SitePoint TECH TIMES #83 Copyright (c) 2004 >February 18th, 2004 PLEASE FORWARD > >EDITORIAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >THE STATE OF XFORMS > >Back in the Tech Times #53 [1], I introduced XForms as the >latest candidate recommendation to come out of the W3C. I >explained the advantages it had over HTML forms, and even showed >a simple example of how XForms work. > >At the time, the media buzz surrounding XForms came from the >fact that Microsoft was building something called XDocs into its >upcoming Office 2003 software. Many attributed Microsoft's >refusal to endorse XForms to similarities that the >recommendation bore to XDocs. > >Over a year later, Office 2003 has been released, XDocs is now >called InfoPath [2], XForms has become a full-fledged W3C >recommendation [3], and the fine folks at x-port.net have just >released formsPlayer 1.0 [4], a free plug-in for Internet >Explorer that fully complies with the XForms standard. > >So why aren't we seeing XForms springing up all over the Web? >After all, the most popular Web browser in the world now >supports them with a free plug-in! > >Due to the stagnation of Internet Explorer [5], all the >ultra-keen Web developers who would normally jump on a >technology like this have moved to Mozilla [6] (and Firefox [7]) >as their development platform of choice. To put it bluntly, >no one really cares what Internet Explorer can do now, because >there is so much that it can't do (like properly support CSS2 >[8]). > >So, the question is, what are the other browser makers doing >about XForms? > >Mozilla is tracking requests for XForms support and volunteers >interested in working on it in bug 97806 [9]. The comments on >this bug, which dates back to the days when XForms was a working >draft, make interesting reading. There are many opinions on why >XForms may or may not be worthy of consideration for inclusion >in Mozilla, but the status quo is that it remains a relatively >low-priority feature request in need of good developers, despite >having nearly 500 votes from community members. > >Apple (whose Safari browser has become a serious consideration >for developers) and Opera issued a combined statement [10] last >September in response to XForms becoming a proposed >recommendation. In it, they outlined a list of "substantial >issues" in the standard that they felt made XForms inappropriate >as a replacement for HTML forms. When pressed, they admitted >[11] that XForms was probably worthy as a platform for advanced >forms development, as long as HTML forms remained as the >mainstream choice in XHTML 2.0. > >So why all this negative sentiment towards XForms? Is it really >so flawed? > >Like any new technology, XForms has a rough spot or two, but the >productivity it offers to developers cannot be denied. Yet, >while XForms itself isn't all that complex, it relies on a host >of technologies that are fairly complex, and are not widely >implemented in today's browsers. Quoting from Apple and Opera's >statement, > >"XForms has too many dependencies. In addition to XForms itself, >an XForms implementation needs to support XML with namespaces, >XML Schema, XPath, XML Events, DOM Events, DOM Core, CSS, a >stylesheet linking technology (e.g. the XML Stylesheet PI), and >a host language (e.g. XHTML or SVG). In particular, its >dependency on XML Schema is of great concern to us." > >The Mozilla bug discussion suggests that XML Schema [12] >support is not strictly necessary for a basic implementation of >XForms, but XML Events [13] is a definite piece of the puzzle >that has yet to be built into Mozilla. Meanwhile, browsers like >Opera and Safari are even further behind the curve. > >>From what I can tell, XForms has the dubious distinction of >being one of the first implementations of a number of XML >technolgies with mass appeal to Web developers. Though well >thought out, none of these technologies has had a compelling >reason to be buit into a Web browser before, and now, all of a >sudden, they would all have to be built at once in order to >support XForms. > >Even with a free, fully compliant plug-in for Internet Explorer, >XForms has some serious hurdles to overcome before developers >can consider it as a serious tool for general Web development. >If you want to pitch in, I would definitely encourage you to >contribute your services to the Mozilla project, but it will >take some smart brains and a lot of work to bring XForms into >the spotlight. > >[1] <http://www.sitepoint.com/newsletter/viewissue.php?id=3&issue=53> >[2] <http://office.microsoft.com/infopath/> >[3] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/> >[4] <http://www.formsplayer.com/> >[5] <http://www.sitepoint.com/newsletter/viewissue.php?id=3&issue=68#5> >[6] <http://www.mozilla.org/> >[7] <http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/> >[8] <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/> >[9] <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97806> >[10] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2003Sep/0006.html> >[11] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2003Sep/0017.html> >[12] <http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema> >[13] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-events/> > >The Archives are located at: >http://www.sitepoint.com/newsletter/archives.php > ></quote> > >/gustav > > > > >>Strangely, just this morning I received this link from Novell: >> >> > > > >>http://developer.novell.com/research/appnotes/2003/septembe/04/a0309046.htm#1849119 >> >> > > > >>Notice the headline and link >> >> > > > >> The Novell XForms Technology Preview (NXTP) >> >> > > > >>I have, however, no idea of the cost for this tool. >> >> > > > >>/gustav >> >> > > > > >>>Date: 2003-10-08 03:58 >>> >>> > > > >>>I saw both of you had posted ?'s asking about the existence of any xforms design tools at the w3c-forms site. >>> >>> > > > >>>Have either of you found any? >>> >>> > > > >>>I am exploring QLink and Liquid Office, both of which seem to be much more than xforms, same story with holosofx (now ibm) >>> >>> > > > >>>Appreciate any help. >>> >>> > > > >>>Gene McKenna >>> >>> > >_______________________________________________ >AccessD mailing list >AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > -- Marty Connelly Victoria, B.C. Canada