Mozilla Starts Work On XForms

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."

Comments

Replace ActiveX??

[Dr. Shim]

How is XForms supposed to replace QuickTime, RealPlayer, Flash, Shockwave, JAVA applets, VRML plugins ... Excuse my ignorance about XForms, but it doesn't look anything like ActiveX technology to me!

Re:Replace ActiveX??

[ultraw]

You're talking about plugins. This is something different.

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??

[BarryNorton]

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??

[WebCowboy]

Excuse my ignorance about XForms ...and perhaps about ActiveX as well. You are excused on both counts--I'm not exteremly well versed on them either ;-)

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??

[msobkow]

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 long as it works.

For that matter, a lot of the key business targets -- the 40-60 market that runs must industries don't even like the fancy animated interfaces. They literally want something as boring and simple as the computer equivalent to the paper forms they've filled out for 20 years.

You say it only takes 5 seconds to load the graphic-heavy display. They say you wasted 5 seconds for one page out of the dozens I need to do my job. Even with a high-speed internal backbone, media is just a bad idea for anything but targetting markets that would rather watch animations than get the job done.

Re:Has MS Jumped on the Bandwagon?

[XemonerdX]

By the time Mozilla 8.0 is released, Internet Explorer will be nothing but a faint memory.

Replace activeX?

[N5]

I use mozilla so websites DON'T HAVE activeX capabilities.

Why would you wana replace an excellent thing like activeX anyway? *sarcasm*

Press releases

[scottme]

Why is it that in every damn press release I see online, not one of the URLs is ever a live, clickable link? Is there some press office union rule that insists only people with the skill and knowledge to use copy-and-paste should ever get to look into the background of one of these blurbs?

Sheesh.

Finally!

[Mia'cova]

When IE development stopped it really hampered new development. It's now clear that longhorn will be introducing a whole pile of new proprietary offerings with its new browser to facilitate the much needed improvement in web apps. But with details locked up, presumably until release, I'm very glad that other browsers are now looking ahead in their own direction. With any luck Microsoft will be pressured into supporting XForms. Heck, I'd settle for a 3rd party plugin. But anything to give developers a solid full-featured cross-platform solution. We can't let ourselves continue to be locked into microsoft products. It's unhealthy :)

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.

Re:Has MS Jumped on the Bandwagon?

[Air-conditioned cowh]

Maybe for intranets it could be used,
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?

[Mia'cova]

If you can add support to mozilla, there's no reason why you can't add support to IE via plug-in. Well, that's probably not entirely true. Maybe someone who's familiar with what can and can't be done via IE plugins could comment?

List please

[kahei]

Is there a short persuasive list of reasons why we should pay attention to yet another W3C recommendation?

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-ht ml-authors.html) I was left a bit confused...

The button element

<input type="button" value="Show" onclick="show()">

can be written

<trigger><label>Show</label>
<h:script ev:event="DOMActivate" type="text/javascript">show()</h:script>
</trigge r>

I have to admit that looks awfully W3C-ish to me. The use of xmlns="" to prove that a tag 'belongs' with an XForm looks even more so.

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.

Combo-boxes are anathema to good UI design

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no place in a good interface design for a combo box.

It should either be a drop-down list where the user locates and selects a value, or a field where the user types a value - not some bastards combination of the two.

If the user needs to select a value that isn't in the list then it usually means you got your UI design wrong IMO.

Combo boxes! No! Please NO!

Re:Combo-boxes are anathema to good UI design

[rseuhs]

So all browsers (at least all browsers that I know about: Mozilla, Konqueror, IE, Opera) have "broken" user interfaces?

-5 Silly

[anti-NAT]

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

[Stuart Gibson]

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?

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

[anti-NAT]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

IE also has latent flaws that, once exploited, lead to hastily-deployed patches.

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.

• http://die.leox.com/ie_unpatched/
• http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0929unpatieho.ht ml
• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/10/ms_inpatch ed_ie_flaw/
• http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/2/11/54950/7046

I will agree that using an unpopular browser does not increase your security, because Opera hasn't had the greatest track record lately. But the Mozilla project has had a consistently better record.

I'm not excusing the Mozilla team for leaving a couple vulnerabilities open for way too long, but they aren't nearly as numerous nor dangerous as some of the long-living (and gaping!) holes in IE. Saying "firefox is no better" is wrong, wrong, fucking wrong.

Re:XHTML 2? Try Web Forms 2.0...

[X_Caffeine]

eh?

<html>
<head><title>Adding sections</title></head>
<body>
&nbs p ; <section>
<h>The Web's future: XHTML 2.0</h>
<p>by Nicholas Chase</p>
<section>
<h>Good-bye backward compatibility, hello structure</h>
<p>Why backward compatibility is over.</p>
</section>
</section>
</body>
</html&g t;

Excluding whatever /. did to a couple tags, what's not human-editable about that?

As long as backward-compatibility through browsers exists, a clean break could be a great idea if handled properly.

same question aros with XSL

[Numen]

Same question arose with XSL... some of the most notable objectors btw to XSLT were the chaps developing Opera who advocated JavaScript+DOM as opposed to XSLT.

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.

Corporate World Dependence

[kiwicmc]

I'm not so sure of your glib statement of corporate dependence on ActiveX. I've worked for a large US corporation (top 20? top 10?) and I know the security boys would smack you upside the head if you even thought of emebedding an Active X control in their intranet infrastructure.

Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM

[rpjs]

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.

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.

It'd be nice if regular HTML forms were also fixed

[jesterzog]

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 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.

Tab Indexing

[Proc6]

I hope the spec includes tab indexes. One of the downsides to the ASP.NET framework is if you have multiple "forms" on the page (which are all within 1 form tagset), controlling which element gets focus on a tap of the tab key is a nightmare. Usually it "doesnt" go where you want it, and worse yet, most the time hitting the ENTER key presses the wrong buttons. Bottom line is, IMHO, the browser shouldn't be guessing what comes next in a tab or enter keypress (unless its unspecified), the developers should decide.

Vs. Active X

[porkface]

The reason ActiveX sucks is not the implementation. It works fine, but is OS dependant.

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

[Baki]

So now with xforms we get a 3rd way to do some things that today can be done either through javascript or server side.

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

[Azghoul]

I was skeptical as well, but then I followed a link or two and found a page they've put together for HTML authors. It's actually very easy to implement and you can do some pretty interesting things with it.

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.

By the way, how many developers really know asp/jsp/php/perl but don't know xml yet? :)

Re:Hmmm

[Baki]

Yes, I've read the same page before I posted my comment. That is why I say it may replace maybe 50% of javascript use, but not more.

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 authors you still find references to script elements.

Re:In other news...

[mark_lybarger]

doesn't the mpl or one of the many licenses mozilla is released under allow corportations to make closed source versions of the software (bsdish)? or at least wrap the rendering engine with closed source software.

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 backward compatability.

Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM

[Dachannien]

You also no longer define the type of formelement (radiobutton, selectboxes,...) the browsing tool chooses the most apropriate system.

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", 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 sake of dictating exactly how the site will look.

Re:

[AliasTheRoot]

"rich, portable web-based applications desired by corporate IT"

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

[dustrider]

ActiveX is being dropped by MS anyway. as even they realise it's insecure. Xforms is really going to come up against Infopath and Avalon which are both new tech's Ms is rolling out. And if mozilla does not provide an alternative it will be left behind again as netscape was in the browser wars. So all in all this is a good thing, perhaps it would be even better through web forms but as per a prior poster the foundations is working on them already. If anything the foundation needs more coders to help roll it out quickly. The web is a fickle place and whoever builds new tech first gets the jump on the market, and as such gets to keep that market.

Re:XHTML 2? Try Web Forms 2.0...

[AliasTheRoot]

And why do I care about this given my compoany has invested a lot of training time and development in a terminal based solution that works for our needs?

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 these other standards just dont answer the questions that are important. Sure they are "neat", but "neat" doesnt get adopted.

Officework

[lysium]

Many companies, but especially media companies, and especially in summertime, pass any and all work off to interns, temps, or clueless college grads. All the smart employees stop working, while all the rich employees are on vacation.

That about explains it, yes?

Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM

[BobLenon]

Yea, and with XForms you'll still be coding for more than one browser ....

* Mozilla suports it
* Opera ... maybe
* 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 ;)

Great, a new source of exploits

[A nonymous Coward]

Great that the client can verify data, but too many shoddy web programmers will use that as an excuse to not verify data on the web server too, as if only valid data can escape the client browser.

Re:Great, a new source of exploits

[AnyoneEB]

This is as a cleaner way than JavaScript to enforce data verification client side, so it doesn't have to touch the server. With HTML forms and JavaScipt, you can simply disable JavaScript to get rid of the data validation. A programmer that wasn't already checking the data server-side has written bad code either way. XForms just makes the client-side interface easier to create.

Re:Great, a new source of exploits

[jeremy_a]

Disclaimer: I haven't actually used XForms, although I have done some reading on it.

It seems to me that this is actually one of the advantages of XForms. With XForms you specify the validation rules along with your form. Now a smart client can use these rules to validate the form before bothering to send it to the server.

But the server can use those SAME rules to validate the data on the server as well. This is necessary both for working with clients that might not support all of the validation functionality, as well as to prevent people from trying to intentionally bypass validation.

This probably requires a bit of extra work from the "shoddy web programmer", but it should certainly be simpler than implementing all of the validation rules twice (once for the client and once for the server), and especially keeping those rules in sync.

Re:Great, a new source of exploits

[prockcore]

Great that the client can verify data, but too many shoddy web programmers will use that as an excuse to not verify data on the web server too, as if only valid data can escape the client browser.

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 form twice (once to ask for the data, the second time to present the user with the data they entered and highlight what went wrong) I'd be happy.

Re:XUL?

[Anonymous Coward]

XForms is NOT platform dependent.
You could use XForms as well in a web browser as in with standard application as long as you have the engine to render it.

Re:Has MS Jumped on the Bandwagon?

[arkanes]

In my experience, sysadmins are really, really lazy. They are much less interested in securing environments than they are in downloading porn and playing unreal tournament. Having a solution where you can simply pass the buck if anything bad happens (Oh, thats Microsofts fault), which will fly because everyone KNOWS that computers are supposed to have problems, is far superior to a "non-standard" (ie, non-Microsoft) solution where they'll be responsible if it breaks.

It's all about accountability, having someone to blame. Some people confuse this with having someone to actually fix problems, that is not a priority. Having someone besides you being responsible for the problem is the priority, a solution for the problem is way down on the list.

Re:A little JavaScript, a little DOM

[mcrbids]

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 ;))...

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 download our software in order to use it - Mozilla just becomes part of "our software" to download...

(We're talking about institutions of typically between 10 and 100 staff)

So when I hear about Xforms coming out, I just DROOL... If I can deliver a better, more productive product faster using Mozilla, AND get a chance to improve the security of my clients' computer systems, you think I would say no?!??

An Open Letter to Law Enforcement Everywhere

[mrchaotica]

Could we have open season on "designers" who don't understand usability? Please?