Slashdot Mirror
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."
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
Why a complicated forms standard? Is there anything that can't be done with a little JavaScript and access to the DOM?
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.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
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!
People discover the meaning of life between getting piss drunk and the following hangover.
XHTML 2 has a number of problems, from backwards-compatibility to human editability. A much better successor for HTML forms is Web Forms 2.0, which is also being worked on by Mozilla, as well as other major players in the industry. Obviously the real challenge is forcing Microsoft to support it.
- Allen Pike
Altering time, one time at a time.
From the announcemnt,
"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
Sad to say it, but if Microsoft doesnt implement XForms into IE, then it doesnt have much of a future. 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". Maybe for intranets it could be used, but not on the general internet.
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)
...is better than ActiveX
Where is Konqueror in this project? Will it (Konqueror) simply follow the "leaders" as it has somewhat been in other instances? How can they get involved?
I use mozilla so websites DON'T HAVE activeX capabilities.
Why would you wana replace an excellent thing like activeX anyway? *sarcasm*
John 3:16 - The easiest way to a BETTER YOU.
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.
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.
BTW, if anybody knows Javascript workarounds for Combobox functionality, I'd be very happy if you could post them.
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).
Parent poster wrote:
"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 deal, you need to have good clients and good servers, and especially good authoring. XForms isn't a magic bullet, it is a protocol, and these component software pieces don't just write themselves.
I saw a demo from some Microsoft guys recently of some forms using ASP.NET, and I must say that I was impressed by what they were doing. Their tools are really maturing.
18 Nov 2003: A preview release of Oracle's XForms processor PlugIn for Internet Explorer is now available. The XForms Processor is a plug to Internet Explorer 6 on Win2000/WinXP. A User's Guide, Datasheet and several samples are provided with the preview release install.
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.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
I am not sure how X-Forms would replace ActiveX since I don't think ActiveX has anything to do with how IE displays an html form tag???
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.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
How many little things like this has various Mozilla people working on it? I'd say "ho hum", except that this project has the backing of two leading Open Source citizens, IBM and Novell. I surely hope this means increased recognition of the importance of web standards. There are too many specs that sound exciting, but never go anywhere, except to be described in some hard-to-read document on w3.org.
From the DENG web site :
"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/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dengmx
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
Of course, it's open source (GPL).
I work for a large software company that makes CRM (et al) solutions for business that are delivered via web, and use only HTML and Javascript.
From a web site, users do ALL management tasks.
For those who didn't know this: one of the great things about XML is that it allows for the mixing of namespaces in a single document.
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.
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
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.
I find combo boxes good since they greatly reduce UI complexity. Just imagine a form where you're supposed to pick a country. That implies a ton of choices, so you'd probably go for a text box where a user can just type in the country name. But then you risk having users mistyping the country name, and if these form results are to be analyzed for statistics, a computer will have no idea what "Swtzerland" is. So to be sure to get better data, you need a list box with hundreds of items?
And now imagine that times 5, if you have a couple of more large selections like that.
The user would be overwhelmed...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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.
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.
What about XUL? Throw away the need to be contained in HTML and make a real thin-client markup language. Then, if you need to display HTML (you know, hyper-text-markup-language, not web applications), you do it using the XUL tag for an HTML widget. XUL tags are course enough that it could be used on multiple platforms, rendered specially for the handicapped, etc.
If we're truly talking "next generation" here, do somethign revolutionary enough to truly be advantageous, not something pitifully incremental.
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.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
There are two classes of application that web browsers are very bad at: rich UI interaction - for example graphics editing - and interactive data apps.
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
Data validation is really that great, you can do it now if you want.
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....
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
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.
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 may have changed recently but I doubt it.
So if the big boys really are going to push this I fear MS might just have to follow, just as MS recently realised it could not keep stringing IE6 along forever.
As for regular home users. Try this. Give my new web app customer a cd with a branded mozilla or have them use IE and handle all the security problems. Slowly people are starting to get a clue. Now it depends on the non-MS companies to exploit that.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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".
specialist always die out in nature...
I support xforms.
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.
ASCII silly question, get a silly ANSI.
The problem is that a lot of web based applications depend on the Rich Text Editor control included with MSIE. If you look at professional CMS-applications many of them use this editor field to format content areas and this makes life a lot easier for content producers.
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.
"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.
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.
That about explains it, yes?
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
There is a lot of negative talk about XForms, and plenty of people asking what it is good for. I've been following the spec and would like to share why it is useful.
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 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.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
Mozilla already has XUL (pronounced "zool" as in cool). It provides rich application ability to be served via the web. (In other words, equivalent to upcoming MS Avalon except XUL has years of use and stability.) XUL works on any computer/OS that has Mozilla or Firefox running so it is cross-platform compatible.
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/
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.
Infuriate left and right
If you want to see XForms in action, point your browser to XForms Institute
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
--- Learn XForms today: http://xformsinstitute.com
I would love to have XForms included..i read some of the comments that mention they are usless... ..
:") ....
..sorry..
U haven't coded js checking code so u dont know how ugly and bad this approach is... or u didnt try to think of a numerous ways how to present db data
XForms at start may be a little complicated, but after they arrive they will be accumulated into the Frameworks..
XForm or if some similar approach is choosen will give the ability to programmers to separate the logic from the presentation..
Many web developers currently use MVC tools (model-view-controler) to separate DB,HTML output and the buisness logic.
The most important thing is Logical separation, especialy when many ppl programmers and non-programmers work on a project.
Opposite approach of MVC is the way ASP&PHP pages are done (i dont follow them anymore, they have to have now also some MVC frameworks), where html&js&server-side code are munged like spagetty nightmare.
This style dosent work for big projects.
I dont care if they are not implemented in IE (even if it has 101% of the market), i need them for in-house apps.
If u want to sell app then give your users a Knoppix-CD and u are OK.
flame bait now commencing
In fact I'm tired of this web dominance and desktop dominance, X% share articles.. when linux will take the desktop..!? and so on..
Who cares I'm using it now and it work for me.
WHEN U WILL UNDERSTAND most of the hard-time lunux users dont want to conquer the world. They want things to work their way. end of story.. if u dont like it that way then we are OK, use whatever suits your needs dont complain.
If u want something to be easier to U pay someone, do it yourself, or help someone to make it happen.
Companies want to take the world, so they have money and they are doing things their way... so we will cooperate on the ways that are common to us and will divide on things we are different.
end of the flame
Could we have open season on "designers" who don't understand usability? Please?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz