Mozilla Starts Work On XForms 283
AnamanFan writes "The Mozilla Foundation, with Novell and IBM, announced the formation to implement the W3C's XForms 1.0 Recommendation on the Mozilla platform. XForms is the forms module in XHTML 2, developed by the W3C. The project enables developers to deliver the type of next-generation, rich, portable web-based applications desired by corporate IT. Is this one step away from the corporate world's dependence on ActiveX? We can only hope."
The truth is out there (Score:5, Funny)
A little JavaScript, a little DOM (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM (Score:5, Informative)
Or perhaps, I just got used to it and only use a well-supported subset of code without realizing it... uh. must check. bbl.
Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM (Score:3, Insightful)
* Mozilla suports it
* Opera
* Safari will only sorta work
* IE - MS will invent it's own puesdo-standard
yea - now i can write sixty different types of xforms instead of JS and DOM
Of course, i could be wrong - i have had many a jaded experiences
Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM (Score:5, Informative)
The standard also includes a label for every form element, which currently does not exist. This is very useful for disabled people - e.g. blind people, their screen-readers can figure out which text belongs to which form element. This is currently impossible.
You also no longer define the type of formelement (radiobutton, selectboxes,...) the browsing tool chooses the most apropriate system. For graphical browsers radiobuttons may be cool, but for screen readers it may read the form like "choose one of the following", and for small display devices a dropdown-menu maybe better as 2 radio buttons plus their label takes up too much screen space.
To me it makes sense, but I know that I wont use XForms anytime soon. Because there's still companies that have MSIE 5 as the only allowed browser in their IT-policy... Creating a web- application for them still includes crazy html and javascript hacks
Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM (Score:4, Informative)
<label for="textbox" accesskey="t">Input text here</label>
<input type="text" name="textbox"
http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/forms/
Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM (Score:5, Informative)
<label for="textboxfield" accesskey="t">Input text here</label>
<input type="text" name="textbox" id="textboxfield"/>
and your example can be shortened to:
<label accesskey="t">Input text here
<input type="text" name="textbox"/></label>
I have mixed experiences with access keys in real life. IE uses the ALT key for both pulldown menus and access keys, hence ALT-F is useless (in english-language browsers, other key-combinations are used in other languages). Then there are issues with semantics. For example, if a submit button has an accesskey attribute, should we assume that using the access key submits the form, instead of just focusing on submit button?
-5 Silly (Score:4, Insightful)
The standard also includes a label for every form element, which currently does not exist. This is very useful for disabled people - e.g. blind people, their screen-readers can figure out which text belongs to which form element. This is currently impossible.
You also no longer define the type of formelement (radiobutton, selectboxes,...) the browsing tool chooses the most apropriate system. For graphical browsers radiobuttons may be cool, but for screen readers it may read the form like "choose one of the following", and for small display devices a dropdown-menu maybe better as 2 radio buttons plus their label takes up too much screen space.
Wow these are great features, it seems you like them, and see benefit in them for a number of people, including the disabled.
To me it makes sense, but I know that I wont use XForms anytime soon. Because there's still companies that have MSIE 5 as the only allowed browser in their IT-policy... Creating a web- application for them still includes crazy html and javascript hacks
Yes, let's all give up, MSIE is the best browser in the world, we shouldn't try to show how standards can make things better.
Thankfully there are enough people in the world who won't just accept the status quo such that improvements keep coming. Sadly, you don't seem to be one of them.
Re:-5 Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
On a non-critical site I'm all for using standards and techniques that, in theory, make for a better experience for the user, but there are times that it just isn't practical.
Stuart
Re:-5 Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes,and if you're rolling out a £10000 web application for a company that is one of those, then you should just tell them they have to upgrade all their boxes in defiance of corporate policy?
They'd have to be used to constant (weekly) security upgrades if they are using MSIE, and the associated MS OSes. I'd also bet those applications stop working every now and again, as the upgrade changes (breaks) the way something works.
On a non-critical site I'm all for using standards and techniques that, in theory, make for a better experience for the user, but there are times that it just isn't practical.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I can't understand who would use MSIE for a critical site these days, with all the associated security problems. Even the Department of Homeland security recommends against using it (not that that means a lot, although it is unusual for a government department to come out against any particular software product).
I'm quite aware people can't just drop one software product for another. However, regarding MSIE, people should be starting their migration plans away from it now.
It makes financial sense to move to standards based web applications. For a start, a larger (larger being >1) variety of web browsers are available. If you have trouble with one browser, you aren't locked into it. Nor are you locked into the OS it sits on.
Re:-5 Silly (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what dream world you're living in, but IE has had a number of security holes that MS considered to be "low-priority" and left unpatched for months It wasn't until Liu Die Yu and others figured out how to chain these holes together for one big spyware vector that MS started taking them seriously.
Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM (Score:5, Funny)
Its been out long enough that its had various service packs and bugfixes so (unlike XPSP2 which is only just out), its probobly safe enough to use.
Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds great in theory, but in practice the design monkeys are going to insist on their chosen control type be implemented as they want it. I've even had an argument where the designers wanted a bunch of check boxes with validation control to ensure only one could be ticked at a time, i.e. functionally equivalent to a group of radio buttons. Took a lot of time to convince them to change as they felt the checkboxes looked better than the radio buttons.
An Open Letter to Law Enforcement Everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as this is the Right Thing To Do, it isn't going to satisfy people who try to micromanage what their web pages look like. These are the same people who put caveats on their sites like "This Site Requires the Shockwave Flash Plugin", [sony.com] and then use a Flash widget to perform basic site navigation, but then don't provide a non-Flash way to use the site, all for the sak
Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM (Score:4, Informative)
However, if only Mozilla supports the Xforms2 standard, not a single site will adapt them. IE is still the market leader (yes, I'm using Firefox, so don't blame me
Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, that's not my experience at *all*. We vend various workflow automation products for schools and educational facilities. I've already done a survey to determine the impact of requiring the Mozilla browser for a web-ish product, and the issues raised in the survey ended at the words "free download".
We already require them to down
Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM (Score:3, Informative)
I guess that MS will stick to their ASP, and their integration with IE and ISS. It is a nice solution, and allows one to quickly program certain things, without all the hassle of validation and the such, but it is very restrictive on platform/browser.
As far as I see it, those who want to implement XForms wil
same question aros with XSL (Score:5, Insightful)
A little JavaScript and a little DOM isn't a standard approach.... You're using a little JavaScript+DOM, I'm using a little Python+DOM and he's using a little Perl+DOM
Now choice is great, but not for documents that you're publishing to a worlwide audience and which aspire to be unerversally readable.
As an aside you mean ECMAScript+DOM... the standard isn't JavaScript, it's ECMAScript.
Assuming we overcame diversity of language choice and madated ECMAScript+DOM the diversity of implimentation of any given task is FAR FAR broader in ECMAScript than it is in a declarative standard, say like XSLT.
Lastly, because XFORMS like XSLT *is* XML it benefits from application of schema, intigration with existing XML tools, mechisms for transport... and generally can be worked with like a regular XML document for instance one might generate your XFORMS via XSLT from existing XML manifests. While this can be done with ECMAScript+DOM, the task is more complicated, is open to diversity of implimentation, is less usable by other parties... and overall is less standard.
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Please?! I for one don't mind if they keep their source closed. Just use the damn code, and we can all be standards compliant for once.
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
the thing is, that ms's browser is really integrated a LOT. there's a lot of things in that operating system (and applications) that use the ie rendering. this would _break_ a lot of things i'd assume.
not that it would be a bad thing, but somehow users have problems when something touches their
Replace ActiveX?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Replace ActiveX?? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is meant are things like "rich textarea" with some MS Office Word-like editing (through activeX) in it. Other uses are in very specific applications like the windows update and the such...
Re:Replace ActiveX?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, how are 'rich text area' controls going to be replaced?
How are, say (from the parent), Shockwave controls going to be replaced?
Yes, these are ActiveX controls in IE; no, they're not going to be replaced.
What's more, for me, I'd say that more likely to be made obsolete than ActiveX controls by a better, and SOAP-compliant, forms mechanism are Java applets... and that, for me, would be great!
Re:Replace ActiveX?? (Score:2)
However, as the presentation and method of input is controlled by the browser, and not directed by the form, it might be very well possible that each textarea-like form element will have some basic editing tools attached to it. I'm however completely unaware if it will be possible to "overload" the basic behavior of the elements.
ActiveX has
Re:Replace ActiveX?? (Score:4, Insightful)
but it doesn't look anything like ActiveX technology to me!
I'm confused. You say that like it's a BAD thing!
ActiveX as a concept seems cool, but the implementation makes me cringe--it should be eradicated from the planet!
How is XForms supposed to replace QuickTime, RealPlayer, Flash, Shockwave, JAVA applets, VRML plugins
XForms is NOT an ActiveX replacement, and it isn't meant to replace ANY of those things. It is a proposal for an elegant, standard implementation of interactive form display and processing--compared to the complete mess we have today (DOM+Javascript, or *particular* ActiveX controls, flash, etc). Ironically, XForms support of sorts is ALREADY available for IE6 in the form of an ActiveX plugin. I suppose that at least allows one to replace a myriad of nonstandard controls with one plugin that implements the bells-and-whistles using an actual standard.
In my opinion NONE of the above plugins are of great use to me and in 90 percent of cases where they are used they only serve to be annoying. To the web authors out there--PLEASE THINK TWICE before using them. Don't use Quicktime, WMP9 or Real unless you are hosting a site dedicated to video and/or sound (I prefer to launch the player externally rather than embedded in the page anyways)! If you aren't making a web-based game then DITCH THE DAMN FLASH AND JAVA--PLEASE!
I want simple, fast-downloading, compatible and easy-to-use interfaces. Proprietary plug-ins and bloated code get in the way. If XHTML with XForms, etc. can make some of the above crap obsolete it'll be a great step forward for the internet.
Re:Replace ActiveX?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just how many order forms, bank payment systems, and other such online services make use of QuickTime, RealPlayer, Flash, or any of the traffic and media-heavy crap that you're talking about?
Forms are about business, not eye candy. Customers need it easy, business needs it portable and reliable. XForms is both.
There will never be a silver bullet that appeases the so-called "web artist" who likes to play with pixel alignments and color transformation maps. Most of the world really doesn't care, as lo
XHTML 2? Try Web Forms 2.0... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:XHTML 2? Try Web Forms 2.0... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:XHTML 2? Try Web Forms 2.0... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:XHTML 2? Try Web Forms 2.0... (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as backward-compatibility through browsers exists, a clean break could be a great idea if handled properly.
Re:XHTML 2? Try Web Forms 2.0... (Score:3, Insightful)
An quote about goodbye backward compatability, hello structure in a broken xml fragment doesnt sell it to me, and it certainly wont sell it to my bosses.
Why is it better? Why does it cost less? Why does it cost us nothing to replace existing apps? Why will we be able to use it in 10 years from now? Why will our staff be more productive?
XML/XHTML/and all
Re:XHTML 2? Try Web Forms 2.0... (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, let's take those one at a time (I'm assuming that by "terminal based" you are refering to something even more archaic than ActiveX-based form builders):
Why is it better? Well, for starters, it's portable. Portability always sounds a tad useless because you can't see yourself moving to a different hardware or OS platform, but while that kind of portability is more important than it often sounds, portability is rarely considered in terms of moving between software platforms. Why is it better? Because you can take your forms, defined for application A and move them over to application B for the same purpose (new vendor) or for a similar purpose (say, an inventory control form that you modify only slightly and input into your POS system).
Why does it cost less? Code is cheap. Cost to maintain code (or markup for that matter) is high. Maintaining something that has a public specification and thousands of vendors rushing to support it is cheaper than than maintaining something that is proprietary.
Why does it cost us nothing to replace existing apps? It doesn't. See above (and factor in the change in lead-time to add new features) and perform your own cost analysis. My estimate is that most medium-to-large shops will amortize the cost of such a technology move over proprietary, terminal-based solutions within a couple of years, but that's just off-the-cuff. Talk to accounting, they'll understand what inputs you need for such a calculation quite well.
Why will we be able to use it in 10 years from now? Because XML is extensible, so in 10 years, many new features will have been added, but the old features that you rely on will still be available (though, perhaps some of them will be available in a compatibility mode provided in response to your use of a archaic schema). I'm no XML fan, but I have to admit that this capability is one of its MAJOR advantages over many other alternatives.
Why will our staff be more productive? That one's easy because there are so many answers: 1) Because there is less ramp-up time in learning your environment; 2) because dozens of companies are going to be competing to produce better and better editors and front-ends for such systems; 3) because the fact that you don't lock in your employees to a proprietary system means that they won't be looking to escape from your cul-de-sac and you will be able to retain a higher calibur of employee without having to over-compensate them for their rare, niche knowledge; 4) because, being a modern tool, it will interface well (or be built into systems that interface well) with other modern, high-level tools (e.g. encrypting form access is a trivial after-thought with SSL).
I don't like the IDEA of XHTML and XForms because of the way it changes the character of the Internet, but I do have to admit that for a certain class of business, it's the best option on the immediate horizon.
What's really new in XForms? (Score:5, Interesting)
"XForms is key to realizing the vision of a future where people can access information online on any device--and do everything from shopping and banking to checking their e-mail or calendar."
Hmmmm?? I do all that on the web - shopping, banking, email, calender - right now just fine with the current generate technology. What's really new in XForms? Is there a XForms show-case or something like that out there?
Osho
Re:What's really new in XForms? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's really new in XForms? (Score:2)
Wasn't Java supposed to do this? Maybe XForms will allow us to have a truly cross-platform Java implementation.... ;-)
Re:What's really new in XForms? (Score:3, Informative)
What's really new in XForms? (Score:3, Informative)
What is good is unwrapping the form from the UI, this should make it easier for small (or large) screens to display the form, and allow blind or handicaped people to navigate the information easier. sections are clear, labels and inputs are tightly bound etc....
Great, a new source of exploits (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great, a new source of exploits (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great, a new source of exploits (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to too many shoddy web programmers who don't bother to verify data at all?
I can tell you that people accidentally hitting enter and submitting half a form happens way more often than someone trying to pass bad data purposefully. If I could prevent that from happening without having to code the damn f
Re:What's really new in XForms? (Score:2, Interesting)
Custom widgets for credit card numbers, telephone numbers, email address and birthdates could be so much more user friendly than the current text box that serves pretty much all of those.
Just look at the upcoming slider widget demoed in the new Mac OS, things could be so much better.
Has MS Jumped on the Bandwagon? (Score:5, Interesting)
Has Microsoft expressed interest in implementing the standard? I hope so, since it looks pretty cool. However, it looks like MS already tackled a lot of the issues with ASP.NET (such as validation controls) so maybe they dont want to reinvent the wheel (or implement something that will help them lose one of their server platform's competitive advantages)
Re:Has MS Jumped on the Bandwagon? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Has MS Jumped on the Bandwagon? (Score:3, Funny)
Ah we can all dream. Personally mine tend to involve fast cars, fast computers and fast red-heads with nice legs.
Re:Has MS Jumped on the Bandwagon? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Has MS Jumped on the Bandwagon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that is quite significant if the intranet is coporation-wide.
What sys-admin really wants IE on a corporate desktop anyway as it attracts so much adware and other unauthorised crud to end up on the machines. How much support time does that take up?
Re:Has MS Jumped on the Bandwagon? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all about accountability, having so
Re:Has MS Jumped on the Bandwagon? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not a magic bullet. (Score:2, Interesting)
"I'm sure visitors would just LOVE to see a site error message "I'm sorry, you must download Mozilla 8.0 to view this website"
Just like I'm sure that web authors would love for 98% of their market go to their competitors who work around IE by using scripting and ActiveX (I take it that your use of the word LOVE was sarcastic). Let's face it, just because there is a standard out there doesn't mean that everyone else implements it and Microsoft loses.
In order for XForms to be a big dea
Re:Has MS Jumped on the Bandwagon? (Score:5, Informative)
Other other major alternatives are:
Flash/Flex from macromedia.
Java applets.
While they are not all the same in the way they work or what they do they all marketed as improvements to the current web forms and a way to bring back alot of the user interface capabilities that were lost with the move to web based applications.
Doesn't HAVE to matter (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly is that MS controls the desktop but it does not control mobile devices. Worse its own browser on mobiles devices is even worse then desktop IE. It
Anything thats not ActiveX.... (Score:3, Funny)
Konqueror? (Score:4, Interesting)
Replace activeX? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would you wana replace an excellent thing like activeX anyway? *sarcasm*
Press releases (Score:5, Insightful)
Sheesh.
Re:Press releases (Score:2)
And while you are at it... (Score:2)
Re:Press releases (Score:2)
I know that there is a firefox extension that does the same thing and I assume mozilla has one too. With opera "go to url" was one of the options in the context menu IIRC but I'm not sure
Officework (Score:3, Insightful)
That about explains it, yes?
Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
Phew.. I was starting to get really scared that the web would be developing at the speed of Macromedia and Sun for the next while. This really is something big and new we can look forward to as well.
I wonder what kind of working timeline they have. With those big corporate spenders helping out, I'd like to think they are really pushing forward at a good pace.
Does is support combo-boxes? (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW, if anybody knows Javascript workarounds for Combobox functionality, I'd be very happy if you could post them.
Re:Does is support combo-boxes? (Score:4, Informative)
Have a text field and a hidden drop down. On text.focus() display the drop down.
Search the dropdown as you type (substring on select.option.text and so on).
If the text fully matches or the user just presses enter (or uses the drop down), select the drop down value, hide it and set the text to that of the selected option.
If the text doesn't match anything on the select, then mark as new (hidden field).
As I said, a PAIN IN THE ASS, but I had to do it for a client that was completely used to comboboxes.
Re:Does is support combo-boxes? (Score:5, Informative)
I know there's others out there, but I don't have the time to track them down right now. But...
Combo box [mattkruse.com]
Combo Box [experts-exchange.com]
Re:Does is support combo-boxes? (Score:2)
HTTP1.1 STATUS 403 Remote Access to this object forbidden This file cannot be directly accessed from a remote site, but must be linked through the Brinkster Member's site.
What a useless link...
Re:Does is support combo-boxes? (Score:2)
Re:Combo-boxes are anathema to good UI design (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Combo-boxes are anathema to good UI design (Score:3, Interesting)
And now imagine that t
[XForms] XForms is not only useful in browsers (Score:5, Interesting)
Like SVG for graphics, I think XForms is not only a useful concept if the browser supports it. I like the idea that I can currently create SVG on the server, render it on the server and send it to the browser as a PNG. I believe that there are currently products and projects available that if you have a set of XForms, allow you to turn them into a standard CGI-like application- all of the work of transforming into HTML etc. is done on the server.
I hope (cross-fingers) that in the future that I can send the original SVG/XForms/whatever to browsers that support it, and render on the server for everything else.
It's also good writing things using standards compliant products. I've currently just moved a website that relied on XSLT a lot from one software toolkit to another. This wouldn't be possible if I'd used a non-standard technology (in the sense that it worked with one toolkit only).
Re:[XForms] (Score:2)
Only becasue I cheated though and changed the default XSLT to one which uses tags to pull in the CSS, as oposed to using the XML delcaration.
from w3.org site: (Score:5, Informative)
List please (Score:5, Insightful)
A recommendation which no doubt will shortly split into 'mobile' 'standard' and 'full', each available at 'level 1' or 'level 2', each in three simultaneously maintained versions called 'Original W3C recommendation', '1.0', and '1.1b'?
I'm not actively going out of my way to be mean here, and I do love SVG despite the issue mentioned above, but the W3C sure seems to focus a lot more on creating documents to justify their staffing levels than on, say, identifying clear needs.
I wasn't able to turn up a simple useful 'what are the benefits of XForms' document anywhere, but looking at the other docs (http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2003/xforms-for-h
PS I realize all this stuff is terribly worthy and open and all, I'm just wondering whether anyone thought of a way to use it.
Re:List please (Score:2, Informative)
Errm... did you look at the FAQ?
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2003/xforms-faq.
It'd be nice if regular HTML forms were also fixed (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's great that Mozilla's looking to finally implement this. I've been watching the bug (97806) for about six months, and it's been very contriversial, at least partly for the reasons you mention.
Having said that, XForms do seem like absolute overkill for a lot of tasks, and it'd be a shame to see them deprecate and presumably replace the limited (but simple) forms that HTML has at the moment.
My own gripe is that in my own experience, existing forms could be so much more convenient to use if only there was an accepted standard for a couple of extra data types.
Specifically, I'd very much have liked to see <input type="date" />. and <input type="time">. (Browser pops up a relevant calendar selection dialogue as appropriate.)
Those two inputs alone, if designed with appropriate properties for things like time zones and granularity, could prevent a huge number of headaches in web programming. Offering some very simple client end type checks for other types of inputs could prevent even more headaches.
XForms is just overkill for a lot of this, but javascript is a very yucky and unreliable alternative. Oh well.
Re:It'd be nice if regular HTML forms were also fi (Score:2)
That's one of the things that XForms tries to address. All information submitted in the form gets placed in an XML document, so you can easily write a schema that places restrictions on valid input. So for instance you can create data types by writing regular expressions for them or by extending existing data types like string, int, etc
Re:List please (Score:3, Interesting)
What really scares me about all this is the worry about adoption rate of the standards that I see everywhere. Web standards has to be the only standardisation field where people start worrying when no standard has been released for a few years. I really cannot see the point of having standards at all if they are changed quicker than they can be sanely implemented (not to mention being used). Look at successful standards efforts, the C language had its last major standard in 1999, it is fa
ActiveX replacement??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Mozilla working XForms isn't that big a deal... (Score:5, Interesting)
XFORM renderer in Flash (Score:5, Informative)
"DENG is an open source Modular XML Browser, capable of rendering subsets of XForms, SVG, XHTML, XFrames, arbitrary XML(...) Currently, the footprint of the DENG Modular XML Browser is 76 KByte, allowing zero-install deployment of these W3C standards to the vast majority of today's web browsers that have the Macromedia Flash Player 6 installed."
http://claus.packts.net/ [packts.net]
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dengmx [sourceforge.net]
This is a really cute application and for those of you who'd like to see Xforms in action, there's a few working examples on their demo page : http://claus.packts.net/deng/examples [packts.net]
Of course, it's open source (GPL).
Re:XFORM renderer in Flash (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with Macromedia's claims about how widely deployed Flash is, is that the vast majority don't have Flash 6 deployed. The vast majority have Flash 5. And when users with Flash 5 go to a site that requires 6 or 7, do they get prompted to download a newer version? No, they just see a partially working Flash animation, or a blank screen.
They dont ALL use ActiveX (Score:2, Informative)
From a web site, users do ALL management tasks.
Mixing technologies using XML namespaces (Score:5, Interesting)
This means that different XML technologies (like XHTML, SVG, MathML, and yes, XForms) can be used in a single file.
Now if the display device (ie. browser) has support for all the used technologies, some funky things become possible.
For example, a web page could use XHTML for structuring a document, SVG for graphics, MathML for formula display and XForms for data input.
Throw in some scripting, and you could for example do a function plotter as a web application, in a single document.
At this point it's not just about structured data anymore, but also about mixing-and-matching technologies to create applications. And XForms is one of the building blocks that will hopefully make this possible.
Corporate World Dependence (Score:3, Insightful)
XUL? (Score:4, Interesting)
If we're truly talking "next generation" here, do somethign revolutionary enough to truly be advantageous, not something pitifully incremental.
Tab Indexing (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a step forward (Score:5, Informative)
There are workarounds and bodges that can help, but they depend on Javascript and you can't be sure that everyone will be running Javascript, let alone that there is consistency at the DOM level.
There are two things that web applications are very good at: rollout and global availablity. Wouldn't it be great if we could have it all. XForms is a step towards that, targeted at data manipulation applications.
For this sort of application, you very often need to update the information presented, at a field level. So for instance, on a desktop application, you might have a field where you can enter a name, and as you type, another control presents a list of possibilities which dynamically changes. Typing 'S' would show you 'Smith' and 'South' and 'Smart'. Adding 'm' would reduce the list to 'Smith' and 'Smart'. And so on.
To do this properly, you need to be able to have sub-page queries of the web server/web service/database/whatever, or you need to download the whole index and filter at the client (yech). And you don't want the whole page to refresh. So it's not something that HTML as it stands can do, without workarounds.
From the XForms FAQ, here's a list of some of the things that can be done with XForms that aren't possible in HTML:
* Check data values while the user is typing them in.
* Indicate that certain fields are required, and that the form cannot be submitted without them.
* Submit forms data as XML.
* Integrate with Web services, for instance by using SOAP and XML RPC.
* Submit the same form to different servers (for instance a search string to different search engines).
* Save and restore values to and from a file.
* Use the result of a submit as input to a further form.
* Get the initial data for a form from an external document.
* Calculate submitted values from other values.
* Constrain values in certain ways, such as requiring them to be in a certain range.
* Build 'shopping basket' and 'wizard' style forms without needing to resort to scripting.
If you are interested in XForms, it's also worth knowing about Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WhatWG) - http://www.whatwg.org/ who are working on specifying an extensions to HTML to allow richer applications. One of the projects is Web Forms 2.0 which aims to specify form extensions for HTML and XHTML.
Both of these are excellent initiatives which could make the life of web app developers Better.
Mozilla starting work on XForms is terrific. The competition may spur Microsoft on... MS are not very keen on anything that reduces the dependence of users on desktop apps. For them, this is a very sensible strategic position because their income stream depends on continued need for their OS, and that in turn is because applications are bound to their platform. Consequently they haven't been especially fast to embrace (or extend) standards which would make it easier to deliver rich web applications.
Don't bother to weigh in with MS-bashing. You are wasting your time and this is not what the para above is about.
Jeff Veit
Re:It's a step forward (Score:2, Interesting)
To date, you can find rich client applications such as Oddpost http://www.oddpost.com/ [oddpost.com] that use Javascript and other IE *features* (sorry but I'm not sure if Mozilla has this) such as XML HTTP Posting to create a
Vs. Active X (Score:3, Insightful)
The main reason I hate ActiveX is that it introduces so many non-standard paradigms to something that is wonderfully simple and powerful. The web, HTML (web pages), and HTTP/HTTPS, are all very useful when you don't start doing stupid shit. Why create a standard to support "stupid shit" that then creates lots of proprietary systems with steep learning curves for new developers/team members?
I have yet to run into a Marketing Requirement that required the use of ActiveX unless some Marketing retard specifically put the term ActiveX in their request without consulting developers.
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
The server side way gives you full flexibility, you can use any language/technology to validate, structure your parameters, regenerate the page. The cost is some efficiency (round trips, having to regenerate full pages except if you use lots if (i)frames which can be very hard to handle).
Now what exactly is the place of this 3rd posibility? Could it really replace javascript? It may eliminiate the need of 60% of todays javascript, but I don't think it can handle all cases.
So the result is, developers need to learn and stay current still with javascript and their server technology of choice (e.g. asp, jsp) and additianlly need to learn xforms and related technologies (xml, xpath).
While submitting structured parameters is nice, what exactly is the point? While validating input values for ranges or types is nice, you still have to repeat the validation on the server side (you never know what manipulated or buggy client comes at you). The server side still has to convert all those text parameters into really structured types/classes.
So I see little benefit but great cost. One or two tricks would be really useful as an addition to current HTML standards (e.g. the partial replacement of pages which can help on large/complex pages without having to resort to frames).
I think this is a typical result of strandards groups that have grown too large and now don't know how to stop and limit themselves. To justify their existance, they keep putting out an ever growing stream of "useful" standards and loose touch with their "customers".
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
XForms can essentially replace javascript as a validation tool. It can also load initial values from another document, something I find pretty interesting (because you let the client side do it, not your poor over-burdened server).
It's just options. You're certainly never going to be forced to use it
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd rather stick with a single mechanism (i.e. javascript, even when it may be improved especially the compatability between browsers) instead of introducing yet another way. Except if xforms could replace 99% of javascript use (i.e. most could just switch completely) it does not make much sense.
For that, the declarative approach is unsuitable IMHO. Even in the doc for author
Sounds good to me (Score:4, Funny)
As a gen-x'r, I prefer to refer to everything as xanything. It really makes my life easier too, as a slacker (I slack therefore I am) you know that I need this. Instead of doing it the old way and calling it FancyNameForSomethingSimple, we just use xsfw. "Honey, where's the xbox?" "I dunno, I think it's in the xcarton in the xcar."
The current forms implementation just sucks.....I'll take xanything new they're willing to try out. Nothing's ever going to replace [java/ecma]script, but if xfroms can cut down on the routine scripting like validation, or maybe just offer some fancy new features (the 'submit as XML' sounds pretty cool!), I'm still xdown.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the author is full of shit, corporate IT doesn't want rich portable web-based applications, those things may satisfy a corporate IT departments needs in certain cases.
If I was a corporate IT director, i'd throw out the technology buzzwords with the bathwater and look for a solution that helps me integrate and solidify all my existing and future application needs.
I dont think this attitude of rewrite everything as web is helpful, most data entry clerks / cashiers think its just as crap as vt100 terminals.
The goal for me at least is finding some way to provide a unified interface to all these different legacy applications in a way that it is consistant and that you dont need to hire a consulting company to refactor every damn screen on your app.
Not only ActiveX (Score:3, Insightful)
why XForms matters (Score:5, Informative)
If you have a web application that presents a form, but the server side needs to represent the data in XML, problems abound. Throw in the potential for repeatable elements and a few conditionals in the XML Schema and your simple little form becomes a major pain to develop. I personally wrote a web front end for authoring MODS records [loc.gov] and had to do serious JavaScript/DOM acrobatics. The result was good, but compromises were made along the way.
XForms changes this because the form constrains to an XML Schema and sends a populated XML document to the server. This simplifies matters tremendously. It doesn't obviate the need for some serious work to setup XForms, but given my initial experience testing the spec, it is a great step forward.
It is overkill for a basic form, so I hope there are some provisions in XHTML for backward support.
What about XUL? (Score:4, Interesting)
Website for XUL:
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xul/
Nice example application developed in XUL.
Click on "Try MAB 1.2" to run the application.
http://mab.mozdev.org/
XForms tutorial online (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to see XForms in action, point your browser to XForms Institute [xformsinstitute.com]
This uses the Flash-based DENG engine, so it should work on any Flash-enabled browser.
The site includes an interactive tutorial, a validator, and the full text of O'Reillly's _XForms Essentials_
.micah
Re:This is the end for me! (Score:3, Funny)
Embedded ActiveX with IE... (Score:4, Interesting)
If Mozilla had a similar editor field that could be embedded I believe that a lot of CMS manufacturers could make cross-browser CMS-software. This could eventually lead to an easier corporate switch from IE to Mozilla.