Trouble Brewing at the W3C? 339
An anonymous reader writes "A breakaway faction of the World Wide Web consortium (W3C) called WHAT-WG, or the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group--which includes Apple, the Mozilla Foundation and Opera--is threatening to revolt over electronic forms standards. WHAT-WG has announced its intention to submit the draft to the W3C, posing the potentially awkward possibility of the consortium advocating two conflicting avenues for Web forms. The fate of a standard could also determine whether the order form could be accessed in any standards-compliant Web browser, or if it would be available only to users of a particular operating system--an outcome that has browser makers and others worried about the role of Microsoft."
Is it really a Battle of the Browsers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Support Celiac Disease Research [komar.org]
Wait a minute... (Score:3, Interesting)
Or is there something I'm missing here?
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought that Web Forms was seen more as an extension of HTML 4.0 forms to make building HTML applications easier, whilst XForms was to improve things like introspection/interoperability (at the cost of being close to impossible for mere mortals to grok)...
What's the difference?? (Score:5, Interesting)
XForms:
- Doesn't require scripting
- Is not backward compatible
- Microsoft doesn't support it
Web Forms 2.0:- Requires scripting
- Is backward compatible
- Microsoft doesn't support it
No clear winner here, yet, but I'll put my money on XForms.Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope, Microsoft is ignoring XForms just like everyone else. Microsoft would prefer people use XAML (from Avalon). It seems the only folks implementing XForms are not browser makers, but people developing intranet based software.
Having written forms-based code with current browsers, I agree with the XForms supporters in that scripting is a terrible way to handle form input. It just doesn't scale and you have the form in one location and the code scripting in another place, so if you change something you have two separate locations to update everything in.
But I know nothing about the XForms standard, so I can't speak intelligently about it.
xforms-- how long have we been waiting? (Score:3, Interesting)
We have been waiting for xforms for far too long.
Forms, the way they are now, are a mess. And the very very late introduction of the long-awaited xforms will serve to F things up even more because all the developer toolchains will have to be made compliant (or not). Its going a long and painful road.
Part of the blame goes to java (sun) and microsoft for screwing up and/or sabotaging the applet concept.
If things were done right, developers would be writing user-input pages as applets rather than a messy rat's nest of css, html, forms, javascript, jsp's, etc...
Re:Competing standards (Score:4, Interesting)
True enough, although Sun does produce a web browser called HotJava it's not exactly got a great market share. What they (mostly) do have in common however is that they write the backend applications that will be receiving the data *from* the forms. I guess it depends on which where your first priority lies; getting the form looking pretty or getting accurate and useful data into your backend systems.
Re:What's the difference?? (Score:2, Interesting)
Give me a break (Score:2, Interesting)
And they apparently won't even consider taking any of Microsoft's adaptations to the standards into consideration, even though many times some of these changes are actual improvements. IE is such a superpower that the only way we can ever have ONE standard is to start blending everything together. At the rate we're going, the browser compatibility divide will only continue to INCREASE, not get better.
So really, why should Microsoft give any credibility to these standards and the people behind them when they can't even agree with one another on such important things?
Re:What's the difference?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Whether XAML will be successful on the web, well that is a different story..
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
The fight at the W3C is over the open standard Microsoft will be ignoring and/or attempting to crush. One side (tech purists?) is advocating a completely new, technically elegant revolutionary new standard. The other side (Microsoft competitors) is worried that this totally new miracle standard, despite it's technical advantages will be crushed in the marketplace by the proprietary Microsoft "standard". They believe it will be crushed for two reasons: 1) It will take a long time to implement and then for users to adopt and Microsoft will beat it to the market with their solution and 2) It will never be supported by dominant web browser. The alternative they advocate an "evolutionary" refinement of existing standards that can actually be implemented with existing browsers using javascript. It beats Microsoft to the market, it's already supported by everybody including Microsoft(!) it's a no-brainer for web application developers trying to decide which technology to use.
Re:Competing standards (Score:5, Interesting)
XForms wouldn't work "out of the box" for most users of my stuff, so I'm a bit hesitant. Ideally I'd have to have an alternate method of entry with "old" forms. And I just don't feel I'm gaining much, never was big on XForms (neither has been anybody it seems, since the first draft). It could become an alternative later on if browser support improves.
Flash MX? Flash is known to too many (including me) as a way to create highly annoying ads, making us use extensions like FlashBlock. It's not a good way to make your site "accessible" either. It just feels like some field (no pun intended) where Flash doesn't belong into and shouldn't extent into. Leave it for unusable site nav and annoying ads.
XUL - you hear a lot about it lately. Haven't really seen much or heard of anybody who's really done anything (web forms related) with it. And even though it's getting more popular, it doesn't work on most browsers, so I can't really consider it anyways.
XAML - are you out of your mind? Another Windows Monopoly-OS centric solution, forcing adoption of the worst browser of them all. People are starting to get the point that those kind of standards (like ActiveX) are bad. If you need LH+IE7 to use it, it's completely and absolutely out of the question. Alternative OS/browsers are left out. And I can't see the W3C drink bad microsoft kool-aid and adopt XAML as some web standard.
I've been dying for better forms for the last year mostly as I've been doing more web stuff. I haven't read much onto Web Forms 2.0 yet, but it might be an option, especially if it has good browser adoption, and by seeing the members of the WHAT-WG, you'd think it should be the case. Otherwise, XForms may be the next best bet still.
Either ways, I'll be happy when this is all resolved, and that we have something better and consistently available for all our visitors, no matter what OS or browser. (If that ever happens, that is).
From someone uncomfortably close to the action... (Score:2, Interesting)
[What follow are my opinions.]
This battle is barely on developer radar, as far as I know. Those on the bleeding edge are using .NET and/or XUL as per ideology and having a great time.
The mantra for nine years has been that one needs to validate on the server, because the client can't be trusted.
This comes down to servers vs. clients in the end... server manufacturers and server software publishers want to be able to control the whole pipeline through the standards, at the potential cost of breaking backwards compatibility in web user agents, and bloating their code in the bargain.
Meanwhile the w3c is far out in front, the same way it's been with CSS2/3 and other tech.
The Web Standards Project [webstandards.org], to which I am attached, has taken a wait-and-see approach. This is due mostly to resource constraints, but also because we're loath (as a group) to take the side of any publisher or group of publishers except in defense of active Recommendations, or in opposition to precedents that would hurt the user community as a whole (such as RAND licensing and the Eolas suit).
When everything's said and done, the greater interest is in a fair standard that's likely to be followed, even if it doesn't manifest the most intelligent solution.
Windows vs. The Browser Part Deux (Score:5, Interesting)
We know what a rotting piece of tripe ActiveX was. We shall say no more on that subject.
What do we think will happen with Longhorn and XAML though? Let's speculate!
First of all, I think Longhorn will arrive without Internet Explorer technology embedded into the OS. I still think they will have some html rendering technology in the OS, but it won't be as ugly and insecure as their current Windows incarnations.
I think the
Then XAML. You will then be able to click on
In looking at XForms, Web Forms 2.0, and then speculating on the nature of Longhorn and XAML, and knowing many business customers as well as I do, I think Microsoft will win a large mindshare of the the Fortune 500.
After that it's all a big toss up because below the "enterprise application level" you could mix and match any of the upcoming technologies.
I almost see a splinter in two directions. The Browser will maintain all e-commerce and global corporation applications and Microsoft will still strongly support this area of development.
But where departmental and Intranet applications come in to play, Longhorn and XAML will win a ton of new development and lock out the newer web technologies.
The simple truth is that most users can't stand web applications. They don't mind doing their online banking in them, but if they're working in the treasury department of a bank, they prefer Windows applications (or office type apps built into Excel or Access).
Anyway, this all hinges on Longhorn being locked down and enormously secure. I think that's the #1 key to its and XAML's success. If MS can pull that off, the W3C people and its splinter groups have a whole other thing to worry about. If Longhorn comes out flaky and insecure, XAML will take years to gain any headway and none of this will matter.
But if I were on the W3C board, I would be hedging bets that XAML and Longhorn will succeed and start planning on how that will play in future efforts. I don't see XForms or Web Forms 2.0 competing with XAML though. Something else will have to do that.
Note: It's just speculation!
Re:Is it really a Battle of the Browsers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Moreover, the trend for IE is going downwards, and if there's anything the browser wars taught us it is that things can change very quickly. Much easier to get people to change browser than get them to change O/S or office productivity solutions.
So if this is a MS vs Everyone Else battle, it might be one of those that Everyone Else can win.
Not War (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not a war. Many of the WHAT-WG members are also members of the W3C.
The Web Forms 2.0 specification is an extension of the existing (and antiquated) HTML Forms specification. It adds some new elements and attributes some of which are alarming omissions from the original spec. Things like standardised date and number input controls will be a boon to web developers. XForms is a quite different technology. And it may be some time before it has the penetration to be a mainstream development tool. In the meantime, Web Forms 2.0, by extending existing HTML forms functionality gives developers a familiar framework to build on.
If you are looking for any political angle then notice that Microsoft are not represented in the members list. [I can assure you that they were invited.] The WHATWG are about web applications. We need a standardised extension to HTML to stave off the immediate threat of XAML. Web Forms 2.0 and the upcoming Web Apps 1.0 are meant to do just that.
XForms (Score:3, Interesting)
What they fail to realize is that XForms is not necessarily a client-side technology and can be used *right now* in ALL major browsers.
Take a look at Chiba [sf.net] for a server-side implementation that works pretty well. No plugins to install!