



XForms, XML Events Now W3C Recommendations 31
"Now that XForms has reached Recommendation, Star Office support for XForms is in the works, and Mozilla contributors are gearing for a Mozilla implementation to complement the three existing fullly qualified implementations: FormsPlayer Internet Explorer Plug-In from England, Open Source Java X-Smiles from Finland, and the DENG browser written in Flash from Germany.. The mobile sector is heating up again, and XForms Basic, which omits XML Schema support, is targeted as an upward-compatible implementation set for mobile devices. Personally, I'm looking forward to bringing XForms to J2ME mobile devices such as the Danger Hiptop, in order to simplify UI development.
Also reaching Recommendation status is XML Events, which complements XForms and other XML applications, and provides a simple XML syntax for accessing existing DOM Level 2 events.
Read the Press Release and Testimonials at the World-Wide Web Consortium."
leighklotz also offers a link to XForms for HTML Authors.
W3C Recommendations? (Score:2, Insightful)
I know that Mozilla and Opera support stan
XForms in Mozilla (Score:1)
Re:XForms in Mozilla (Score:1)
sorry about that..
you can still copy the link and go there yourself ofcourse
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=978
what vote? (Score:2)
But what about IE? (Score:1)
As a web programmer, I really hope that Mozilla et. al can achieve some critical mass so that I can actually take advantage of them.
--
Third Eye Media [thirdeyemedia.net]
Re:But what about IE? (Score:2)
So if Microsoft continues to ignore new interesting technologies, at some point people are going to
Re:But what about IE? (Score:2)
While I agree it is disapointing -- IE is quite dated -- MS has no plans to upgrade IE outside of
Re:But what about IE? (Score:1)
Direct link to book (Score:2)
Standards spam (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, we really need a world-wide standard for describing form like interfaces - I mean with the current chaos it's a miracle anyone anyone can build a UI at all. Maybe the w3c would like to consider these additional standards:
Xcolour - an XML based standard for defining colours. Instead of conflicting standards such as RGB, CMYK, Pantone, colours will now be defined according to a really complex XML markup system.
Xconfig - an XML based configura
Re:Standards spam (Score:3, Funny)
I imagine if they had their way, it'd take 4000 bytes of XML to do the W3C-approved equivalent of:
<font color="red">
You joke, but... (Score:1)
"WARNING: In HTML 4.0, FONT is deprecated. It may become obsolete in future versions, consider using style sheets instead."
XML is not the solution to everything (Score:2)
I'm becoming more and more disenfranchised with the W3C as time goes on. They are becoming another example of design-by-committee. They are continuing to abandon the KISS principle in favor of "make everything fit, no matter the complexity".
I'll admit some of the stuff in these specifications
If they really wanted to do something useful... (Score:4, Insightful)
Select a date:
<input type="date"
(displays a calendar widget)
Select a time:
<input type="time"
(displays a clock widget)
Select a color:
<input type="color"
(displays a color selection palette widget)
Select a coordinate:
<input type="map" src="/mymap.png"
(displays an image map, with a visual mark where you clicked on the map, with an option to allow the user to select multiple)
Select a number from a range:
<input type="slider" minval=1 maxval=10
(displays a slider widget)
I think implementing new form inputs like these would be a lot more useful than reinventing the wheel.
Re:If they really wanted to do something useful... (Score:2)
These widget types that are missing are not easy to replicate using plain HTML.
A calendar can be replaced by a MM/DD/YY select lists, but those are much more cumbersome to use, and allow the user to select impossible combinations (February 31 for example), which then require error handling. It's always best to create a situation where it's impossible for the user to input erroneous information to begin with.
A clock can also be replaced with
Re:If they really wanted to do something useful... (Score:2)
Ack! You're saying that, if the page automatically forced correct values, you wouldn't handle errors?!
Remember, your attacker (always assume that you have one, and that he's s
Re:If they really wanted to do something useful... (Score:2)
Sigh. The valid point that one should do server side validation is not a counterargument to the point that preventing invalid user input is far better than correcting it. Validation on the client side e.g. a MS-style calendar widget does not stop one from doing server-side checks against intensionally malformed input.
In short, do both.
Re:If they really wanted to do something useful... (Score:1)