Trouble Brewing at the W3C?

An anonymous reader writes "A breakaway faction of the World Wide Web consortium (W3C) called WHAT-WG, or the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group--which includes Apple, the Mozilla Foundation and Opera--is threatening to revolt over electronic forms standards. WHAT-WG has announced its intention to submit the draft to the W3C, posing the potentially awkward possibility of the consortium advocating two conflicting avenues for Web forms. The fate of a standard could also determine whether the order form could be accessed in any standards-compliant Web browser, or if it would be available only to users of a particular operating system--an outcome that has browser makers and others worried about the role of Microsoft."

Comments

Is it really a Battle of the Browsers?

[Hulkster]

Ummmmm ... is the combined market share of ALL browsers outside of "Apple (aka Safari), Mozilla, and Opera" and IE even close to 1%? I.e. I don't want to be unfair (even though this is /. which is anti-MS), but is this really shaping up as a everyone-but-Microsoft vs. Microsoft battle? Or (and I did RTFA), is it more a matter of which technical standard is better?

Support Celiac Disease Research

Re:Is it really a Battle of the Browsers?

[R.Mo_Robert]

Ummmmm ... is the combined market share of ALL browsers outside of "Apple (aka Safari), Mozilla, and Opera" and IE even close to 1%?

You haven't kept up with the stats lately, have you?

WebSideStory this January has Firefox alone at 5%, and IE is about 90%. Nobody I know is reporting anything below 1% for the "other guys". Besides Firefox, Opera was at 2.1%, Netscape (maybe including the Moailla suite as well) was at 2.6%, and I don't know about Safari or others.

OneStat even has IE below 90% at 88.9%, and that was last November.

So, yes, the combined non-MS marketshare is certainly more than 1%, which you could have easily found out with a little research.

Re:Is it really a Battle of the Browsers?

[_merlin]

I think you missed the point. He was saying that (Safari + Mozilla + Opera + IE) > 99% market share. So if Apple, Mozilla and Opera all get together and make their own non-standard "standard", ot won't really make things worse than they already are. IE already does things differently to everyone else, and this doesn't change that.

Re:Is it really a Battle of the Browsers?

[Hulkster]

So, yes, the combined non-MS marketshare is certainly more than 1%, which you could have easily found out with a little research.

Uhhhhhh ... what I said in my original post was that the combined non-MS/Safari/Mozzila/Opera marketshare is less than 1% ... which I believe is true (although I forgot about the Netscape guys).

So as I stated, this seems to be everyone-but-Microsoft on one side of the discussion which is why I asked if it was a political or a technical battle/discussion.

Re:Is it really a Battle of the Browsers?

[Edgewize]

Note to moderators and readers: the parent is saying, "Is this really a battle for the best standard, or is it just a political battle among the existing browsers such as Safari, Mozilla, Opera, and MSIE?"

He raises a valid point: is this battle about standards or browsers? Is XForms being downplayed because WebForms is technically superior, or is it just because XForms plugins only exist for MSIE?

Re:Is it really a Battle of the Browsers?

[Edgewize]

Correction to myself... obviously, XForms is not being downplayed because MSIE supports it, since MS does /not/ encourage use of XForms.

This is a tricky argument to phrase correctly. I think that the question is if XForms is being downplayed because the lack of backwards compatibility might drive lazy or non-standards-minded people to a MS platform rather than risk current breakage with XForms.

Re:Is it really a Battle of the Browsers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Calculating browser market share is notoriously tricky. But still, add Apples OS market share (some 3-4%, mostly Safari) to Linuxes market share (another 3-4%, mostly Firefox) to Firefox on Windows desktops (possibly 5-10%) and you are somewhere around 15%. Opera has maybe just 1% of the desktop browser market, but here's the catch: it's rapidly becoming the default browser for handhelds (funky mobiles and PDAs), and the hype these days is that handhelds are about to become a major access point for the web - giving Opera a clout not visible in their current market share.

Moreover, the trend for IE is going downwards, and if there's anything the browser wars taught us it is that things can change very quickly. Much easier to get people to change browser than get them to change O/S or office productivity solutions.

So if this is a MS vs Everyone Else battle, it might be one of those that Everyone Else can win.

Re:Is it really a Battle of the Browsers?

[nazh]

Mozilla has support for xforms: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xforms/

Though you have to download a nightly build of either firefox or mozilla suite which has support for XTF then you can try xforms with an extension.
A bit of a hassel, but after seeing the xforms examples I have to say it looks pretty neat ;)

Re:Is it really a Battle of the Browsers?

[dolphinling]

It's mostly technical. Most of the people involved agree that the current forms situation is awful, but the w3c's solution (xforms) is too far away in the future, and something needs to be done now.

You can read the charter, and of course other people may have slightly different opinions or reasonings than me.

Re:Is it really a Battle of the Browsers?

[joto]

I don't want to be unfair (even though this is /. which is anti-MS), but is this really shaping up as a everyone-but-Microsoft vs. Microsoft battle? Or (and I did RTFA), is it more a matter of which technical standard is better?

None of the above. It's just that a bunch of browser makers are lazy and whiney, and don't want to implement XForms. To make their position seem more reasonable, they instead blame their users for being slow to upgrade their browsers.

But they all know that if XForms isn't adopted soon, surely Microsoft will come up with a "better" solution. So instead, the rest of them try to agree on something that microsoft wouldn't come up with. They all know it's inferior, but at least is here right now!

You know the saying -

[Black Parrot]

"The best thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from."

Re:You know the saying -

[TedTschopp]

We have a saying at work, "If there is a standard, then we will support it." Be it Java, .NET, Oracle, MsSQL, SyBase, Perl, ASP. If it's a standard we will support it.

Re:You know the saying -

[Zocalo]

So many standards indeed. According to the article "The W3C is saying the answer is XForms. Microsoft is saying it's XAML. Macromedia is saying it's Flash MX. And Mozilla [along with Opera and Apple] is saying it's XUL."

OK. Lovely. It looks like the Internet Explorer vs. Netscape Navigator browser war is back with a vengeance, only with some new players. I think it's safe to say that Macromedia isn't going to get its way, and I hope we've all learnt our lessons about Microsoft's bait and switch tactics with standards by now. Yeah, right! I'm betting Microsoft will go with XAML, and everyone else will go with XUL only to add XAML support later because Microsoft will refuse to support XUL. <Sigh> It's going to be CSS and browser specific hacks all over again, isn't it?

Re:You know the saying -

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to Microsoft's saying: "If there is a standard, then we will embrace it, pervert it and destroy it!"

Re:You know the saying -

[Farrax]

Don't count Macromedia out. Over 98 percent of browsers have the flash player installed -- which is to say that if you design your website in flash (something that taken in moderation might be a good idea!) you have the best chance of having consistent look and feel across browsers. You also have a far richer webforms interface than straight HTML, with one implementation -- which is the aluring goal of the WHAT-WG and the absolutely insane W3C group it is trying to co-opt.

Re:You know the saying -

[Black Parrot]

> Uhhh, what the hell did you think "from the so-many-to-choose-from dept." referred to?

Good point. I almost never read those tags.

Re:You know the saying -

[CRCulver]

Since Flash lacks semantic markup, how exactly are blind users supposed to make use of my website? How can I elegantly convert DocBook (or another XML dialect) to Flash like I do for XHTML all the time? Flash causes too many problems with adaptability and accessibility.

Re:You know the saying -

[Mycroft_VIII]

Not to mention flash is evil (ok ok just my opinion) but I hate sites that INSIST on flash, not only because it's bad for the blin) but because web developers who use it never seem to understand that some people (try a great many) do not have a huge pipe to download all that crap. Another minor ding against it is that it's proprietary(sp?) IIRC.
I bought a game recently and went to thier site and the main page is just a big square block with a few trademarked logos on the bottom because I don't want to wast the time to download flash, then download thier intro.
I had to fiddle around guessing at the names of other possible web pages on thier site to find something readable.

Mycroft

Re:You know the saying -

[iwan-nl]

[...] and everyone else will go with XUL [...]

Have you ever written a XUL ui yourself? I have. I like the concept behind XUL, but for anything more than a simple firefox plugin it's far too verbose and bloated.

I ported an excisting intranet application from XHTML/javascript to XUL/javascript. The XUL version needed about twice the amount of code to get the same functionality. And XUL code is, IMHO, much harder to read too.

Re:You know the saying -

[TheRaven64]

Be it Java, .NET, Oracle, MsSQL, SyBase, Perl, ASP. If it's a standard we will support it.

None of the things you listed are standards, they are all products or companies.

Re:You know the saying -

[TheRaven64]

Not to mention the fact that it completely bypasses the browser's forms assistance features. My local cinema uses Flash for online booking forms (doubly obnoxious since they charge around 50p/ticket for the privilege of booking online). Every other site I visit with a form of this nature gets my name, address, etc autocompleted from my personal vCard. This one doesn't. It is spectacularly irritating for the end user.

Re:You know the saying -

[dolphinling]

That's the XUL namespace. It's just like the xhtml namespace, but funnier.

Re:You know the saying -

[Garg]

ummm... Flash has supported accessibility for disabled users since version 6. Not that it's widely used, of course, but you could say the same thing about section 508 usability for most regular HTML sites too.

As far as converting XML to Flash, you can use something like Flex (expensive, but nice tools and data binding) or Laszlo (free and open source).

Garg

BROWSER WARS IV - A New Hope

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a period of civil war.
Mozilla spaceships, striking
from a hidden base, have won
their first victory against
the evil Microsoft Empire.

During the battle, Mozilla
spies managed to steal secret
plans to the Empire's
ultimate weapon, INTERNET
EXPLORER 7, an armored web
browser with enough power to
destroy an entire website.

Pursued by the Empire's
sinister agents, WHAT-WG
races home aboard its
browser, custodian of the
form standards that can save
their people and restore
freedom to the galaxy....

Re: BROWSER WARS IV - A New Hope

[flargleblarg]

May the Source be with you.

Re:BROWSER WARS IV - A New Hope

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to read this comment properly, I needed to tilt my screen way back.

Wow...

[Quixote]

FTA:
Forms based on current Web standards are used in every Google search, every Amazon.com sale, every automated blog entry, every online tax payment, and every Web e-mail log-in.

Wow... I didn't know these all-powerful "forms" were everywhere!

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know that bloggers were automatons.

Duh. Most blogs are just scripts that copy articles from news.google.com and randomly insert the words "meme" and "blogosphere".

Re:Wow...

[earthbound kid]

Oh yeah, read your Plato. The Forms are awesome. First of all, there's the Form of the Good, which is a lot like the sun. And everyone else is like a slave in cave. (Basically, it's just a rip-off of the Matrix. Still, it's kind of interesting.)

So, if I understand this story correctly, Microsoft feels that Forms are just properties of webpages that already exist, but the others feel that Forms are timeless, ideal webpages that we can remember experiencing before our birth. You know, like the Englebart hypertext computer.

If the standards committee is really torn between these two ways of understand the Forms, it may come down to someone like Hegel, showing that the Forms are a historically evolving entity, moving towards an inevitable conclusion.

Or, Microsoft will do whatever the hell they want in IE7 and everyone will just have to complain about it.

Either way, it's good to see more public philosophy.

Re:Wow...

[logicnazi]

No, No it is the WHAT-WG who feels that forms are just particulars of webpages that already exist and the XFORM faction that believes forms are timeless ideal webpages.

Microsoft, never one to give much weight to intersubjective agreement, doesn't believe in forms. At least insofar as forms are taken as objective browser independent phenomenon. They feel our perception of the form is a culturally dependent phenomenon.

Re:Wow...

[earthbound kid]

Ah, so Microsoft is Sophist and/or Post-Modern. Now I get it.

Re:Wow...

[earthbound kid]

Thinking even more, Microsoft is quite plainly Thrasymachus:

"Justice/innovation is nothing but the advantage of the stronger."

Re:Wow...

[AmoebafromSweden]

>Oh yeah, read your Plato. The Forms are awesome.
>First of all, there's the Form of the Good, which
>is a lot like the sun. And everyone else is like
>a slave in cave. (Basically, it's just a rip-off
>of the Matrix. Still, it's kind of interesting.)

uhhh I hate to be a nitpicker ... But wouldn't it be the Wachowski brothers who ripped off Plato...

Oh Great

[timigoe]

More differences between browsers... that won't be good. Its already a nuciance with standards not being fully supported as is across the different browsers.

Re:Oh Great

[conna01]

Not to mention the different versions of the same browser...

Re:Oh Great

[kalakala]

microsoft does not support standards, or at last, it does not fully support them and has created it owns standards, changig basic stuff

Competing standards

[thephotoman]

I'm all for choice when it comes to how to do things, but standards should be, well, standard. The point of such arbitrary standards is lost if the bodies that are supposed to arbitrate the mechanisms are squabbling.

However, given the members of the W3C that are in the breakaway faction, it gives me pause to think that the only non-participating engine coder on the list is Microsoft. It makes me think that perhaps the standard that our favorite punching bag monopoly is trying to do something with the web forum standards that the others aren't liking.

Of course, this is without R-ing the FA, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Re:Competing standards

[Wesley Felter]

You make a good point. I looked at the XForms spec, and it was written by IBM, Xerox, Adobe, SAP, Novell, Sun, et al. What do these companies have in common? None of them develop major Web browsers.

Re:Competing standards

[Zocalo]

None of them develop major Web browsers.

True enough, although Sun does produce a web browser called HotJava it's not exactly got a great market share. What they (mostly) do have in common however is that they write the backend applications that will be receiving the data *from* the forms. I guess it depends on which where your first priority lies; getting the form looking pretty or getting accurate and useful data into your backend systems.

Re:Competing standards

[Nik13]

The thing is, the forms won't be used by the browser makers nor the back end makers (well, indirectly in both cases). It's the web application developpers who do, and they'er also the ones left using whatever technologies that are available to solve the problem.

XForms wouldn't work "out of the box" for most users of my stuff, so I'm a bit hesitant. Ideally I'd have to have an alternate method of entry with "old" forms. And I just don't feel I'm gaining much, never was big on XForms (neither has been anybody it seems, since the first draft). It could become an alternative later on if browser support improves.

Flash MX? Flash is known to too many (including me) as a way to create highly annoying ads, making us use extensions like FlashBlock. It's not a good way to make your site "accessible" either. It just feels like some field (no pun intended) where Flash doesn't belong into and shouldn't extent into. Leave it for unusable site nav and annoying ads.

XUL - you hear a lot about it lately. Haven't really seen much or heard of anybody who's really done anything (web forms related) with it. And even though it's getting more popular, it doesn't work on most browsers, so I can't really consider it anyways.

XAML - are you out of your mind? Another Windows Monopoly-OS centric solution, forcing adoption of the worst browser of them all. People are starting to get the point that those kind of standards (like ActiveX) are bad. If you need LH+IE7 to use it, it's completely and absolutely out of the question. Alternative OS/browsers are left out. And I can't see the W3C drink bad microsoft kool-aid and adopt XAML as some web standard.

I've been dying for better forms for the last year mostly as I've been doing more web stuff. I haven't read much onto Web Forms 2.0 yet, but it might be an option, especially if it has good browser adoption, and by seeing the members of the WHAT-WG, you'd think it should be the case. Otherwise, XForms may be the next best bet still.

Either ways, I'll be happy when this is all resolved, and that we have something better and consistently available for all our visitors, no matter what OS or browser. (If that ever happens, that is).

Re:Competing standards

[scabrous1]

Not to be a polyanna, but ... I get both sides. The Xforms/W3c crowd want to define a spec that can take web application development and data collection into the future. The html spec is old and really not flexible enough to do some of the "fancy stuff" that pushes the envelope. OTOH The Webforms 2.0 crowd wants to ensure that the browser you have continues to work, which also makes sense. But ... doesn't it make sense that the "old" (ie webforms 2.0) could be refreshed/updated as part of the standard in a transition mode, and that at the same time Xforms would be supported as the "more robust/enterprise" standard going forward? Adopting both standards in this way just does not seem to be awkward or odd to me at all. This way, developers can choose which of the standards they want to adopt. If they find a compelling reason to do xforms now, then they realize that this choice will compell browser upgrades. Fine. They know that ahead. Similarly, the browser folks can keep doing what they are doing, and simply aim to put xforms support in the dev tree for some future version .... while still being sure that the existing code will work with many sites that use the updated "old code" of webforms 2.0 Everyone wins, right?

Re:Competing standards

[jsight]

True enough, although Sun does produce a web browser called HotJava it's not exactly got a great market share.

Actually, that has been EOL'ed.

Re:Competing standards

[Spy der Mann]

None of them develop major Web browsers.

Furthermore, none of them MAKE WEBSITES FOR A LIVING. They don't have to worry about a website running in this or that browser ("hey, just make it have a javavm and we're all set"), and they certainly don't have to cope with pointy-haired bosses wanting to move this graphic here or there.

"What do you mean it can't be done?"
"The browsers do not support the specs, sir."
"You're fired!"

Oh, you bet they'd DO support webforms if they had to experience the pain of web designing.

Re:Competing standards

[ionrock]

The thing about XForms is that it doesn't limit itself to just browsers. Much of what the w3c does is not limited to strictly the Web Domain. While no browser supports XForms currently, there is a potential that things like xhtml and the like might be a moot point after a while. The "browser" might be a much simpler application that is more of a gateway to a real application instead of a kind of viewer. After taking a look at WHAT it seems they are looking at things from a strictly web scope. Not that this is bad, but it would be much better if instead of making better standards because of web browsers, we just had the opportunity to use our own applications as they are.

Re:Competing standards

[brunogirin]

Indeed, none of them develop web browsers. However, they all develop large-scale applications that need to interact with a number of external systems including, but not exclusively so, web browsers. For instance, a lot of them need to be able to interact through web services, MQ messages, etc. In order to build an application for which a web browser is one channel amongst many, a fully declarative approach like XForms is more simple and scalable. In particular you can ensure that you use the same declarative validation across all channel.

Web Forms, on the other hand, AFAIK derive from XUL, which depends heavily on scripting, which is not necessarilly enabled by the client application, if it is available at all. It also means that the validation rules need to be designed differently: scripting is dynamic and can potentially change the structure of the form while you have no control over it; you also need to be careful one script does't interfere with another. Using a script-based technology, you can have a more dynamic front-end but the cost is that it is difficult to integrate with other channels in a multi-channel application.

Another aspect is that a declarative approach like XForms works better on less powerful hardware because the client software has more control over how it is executed. A script based approach can potentially get ou of hand if written badly (or intentionally so). Ever had Javascript bring your browser to a standstill? So a declarative approach will scale better for very, very big forms (and that's exactly what IBM, Sun, Xerox and co deal with).

Last but not least, a fully declarative approach is by nature easy to make compliant with accessibility guidelines. A script based approach is a nightmare to make accessible.

As a conclusion, I'd say WebForms are good for dynamic web sites whose audience doesn't need accessibility and have up to date hardware. XForms is better for large enterprise solutions where you need to integrate multiple technologies, provide for people with disabilities and scale to very large forms. Both have a role to play I think but whether the W3C wants to let 2 standards live side by side and how they could support both is another question.

Re:Competing standards

[kaiidth]

HotJava! I haven't seen that since, ooh, 1999. Didn't they give up on that around then? I seem to remember that my employers of the time had decided to support it (against all logic) on their embedded Java platform. When that went west, they ended up having to evaluate Linux vs. Windows CE, and this was back in the days that CE really was short for 'See? it still sucks'.

I recall Microsoft actually offered at that time to sell my employers a 'nightly OS refresh' system, which was managementspeak for rebooting the thing once a night so that the memory leaks never got beyond the faintly ridiculous. How fortunate that embedded Windows has since improved.

*sigh* Nostalgia - what fun. Back on topic, however, I think HotJava died around the days of Netscape 4.

Wait a minute...

[Apreche]

So let me get this straight. Microsoft wants to make Xforms the standard. Everyone else wants something else to be the standard. But does it really matter which standard we choose as long as its an open one? And aren't all W3C standards open? So what's the problem? I say choose the better standard regardless of other factors.

Or is there something I'm missing here?

Re:Wait a minute...

[ekuns]

Nope, Microsoft is ignoring XForms just like everyone else. Microsoft would prefer people use XAML (from Avalon). It seems the only folks implementing XForms are not browser makers, but people developing intranet based software.

Having written forms-based code with current browsers, I agree with the XForms supporters in that scripting is a terrible way to handle form input. It just doesn't scale and you have the form in one location and the code scripting in another place, so if you change something you have two separate locations to update everything in.

But I know nothing about the XForms standard, so I can't speak intelligently about it.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Trejkaz]

I find XForms the better idea, as it doesn't rely on the ludicrous assumption that HTML is the only markup language which forms will ever be used in.

Re:Wait a minute...

[overunderunderdone]

No, You didn't get it straight. Microsoft is pursuing their own proprietary solution completely separate from these two competing standards.

The fight at the W3C is over the open standard Microsoft will be ignoring and/or attempting to crush. One side (tech purists?) is advocating a completely new, technically elegant revolutionary new standard. The other side (Microsoft competitors) is worried that this totally new miracle standard, despite it's technical advantages will be crushed in the marketplace by the proprietary Microsoft "standard". They believe it will be crushed for two reasons: 1) It will take a long time to implement and then for users to adopt and Microsoft will beat it to the market with their solution and 2) It will never be supported by dominant web browser. The alternative they advocate an "evolutionary" refinement of existing standards that can actually be implemented with existing browsers using javascript. It beats Microsoft to the market, it's already supported by everybody including Microsoft(!) it's a no-brainer for web application developers trying to decide which technology to use.

Re:Wait a minute...

[PepeGSay]

You forgot number 3: The microsoft standard actually deals with the real world business needs for these forms.

And number 4: The "evolutionary" method is a load of crap that has been tried before (in essence, and in a non-published/standardized way)by people such as myself and it always sucks eggs once implemented for anything more than posting porn to a bit torrent tracker.

It is not a no brainer. There is far more going on that the micrsoft idea and "purists" at the W3C are dealing with. Most notable, web form generation from meta data (in a well designed way) that can generate forms for passage through XML middleware (like biztalk and some java stuff out there) without a ton of work for minor modifications and on a large scale. It is most certainly not a no-brainer.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

scripting is a terrible way to handle form input. It just doesn't scale and you have the form in one location and the code scripting in another place, so if you change something you have two separate locations to update everything in.

Have you looked into how Remote XUL works? A server sends a bunch of stuff to a client (xml, css, and javascript). The client uses the script you send to handle the workload appropriate to the client end. Using a programming language for this task gives you a lot more flexibility than pre-adjudicating what clients should and should not do.

Scaleable? Sure, you can pass off as much of the load as appropriate to the client, leaving your server to do only what it needs to. Why do you say not scaleable? The toughest part would be doing database replication on the server end if you need to load balance across multiple machines, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Two separate locations to update? No, all xml, css, and javascript is maintained centrally. Application updates happen for all clients whenever you change what you send them.

P.S. - Microsoft was involved in the XForms standardization process (or should I say lack of process/progress). This effort has been mischaracterized elsewhere as being the brainchild of a small cadre of browserless anti-Microsoft folks. See http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/sliceI.html to see a full list of everyone involved. It is interesting to note, though, that the finished product doesn't list Microsoft as a participant, but as a former participant. I would love to know more about Microsoft's contribution, or foot-dragging lack thereof, to the successful completion of this standard.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Jay Carlson]

Most notable, web form generation from meta data (in a well designed way) that can generate forms for passage through XML middleware (like biztalk and some java stuff out there)

I don't know about you, but over the last ten years the term "middleware" has had one reasonable translation, brought to us by both The Holy Grail and the Teletubbies:
Run away! Run awaaaay! What a Teletubby says when they want to get away from something or some event in Teletubby-land. As an actual object, middleware has survived when nobody really thinks it's middleware. For instance, Apache looks an awful lot like an Object Request Broker, complete with the usual maze of activation policies, but it's low-brow enough that almost everybody has ignored this.

Re:Wait a minute...

[hiroko]

I'm surprised that no-one seems to have mentioned that Mozilla has an Beta Xforms extension already available, which adds native (i.e. it becomes a core part of the browser) support for Xforms.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Cereal Box]

But I know nothing about the XForms standard, so I can't speak intelligently about it.

You're absolutely right, because you make statements like this:

Microsoft is ignoring XForms just like everyone else. Microsoft would prefer people use XAML

XAML is for creating rich user interfaces (think web applications that are close to "real" applications). XForms is merely a new way of collecting webpage form data using XML from end to end. Saying that Microsoft prefers XAML over XForms is about as ridiculous as saying Microsoft prefers XAML over regular HTML web forms. Let's also not forget that Microsoft is a member of the W3C XForms committee.

Microsoft prefers XAML over XUL because XAML and XUL are actual competing technologies. XAML has nothing to do with XForms.

Re:Wait a minute...

[overunderunderdone]

It is not a no brainer

Sorry... I didn't really complete my thought. The choice for developers between Microsoft and WHAT-WG would be a no brainer... or at least that is what WHAT-WG is hoping. The WHAT-WG solution despite it's (significant) technical disadvantages would be available to 100% of users the moment it is finalized. The Microsoft solution will only work for people running Longhorn. Right now that really is a no brainer, Since adoption of new technology isn't instantaneous it will continue to be a "no brainer" for a while after longhorn is actually (finally) on the market. By the time the number of longhorn users makes Microsoft's solution more attractive there will likely be a "Web Forms 3.0" addressing at least some of the failings of the first implementation.

I also think it's likely that the open standard solutions aren't in direct competition with each other. The politics of the situation at the W3C will probably lead to a combination of the two approaches. Evolutionary progress now does not preclude adoption of the revolutionary approach when it's ready. The evolutionary stop-gap may even smooth the path to the revolutionary solution when it's ready. Actually I suspect that the conflict between the two camps at the W3C is being exaggerated for the purposes of a "good story". Thw WHAT-WG site claims that Web Forms 2.0 and XForms are complementary rather than competing.

Re:Wait a minute...

[PepeGSay]

I was using middleware in its most generic sense. A process, application, server, etc. that is neither a database nor provides user interface.

Re:Wait a minute...

[St. Arbirix]

From what I've heard about XAML, they'll be using it as a general UI descriptor for all programs compiled in Visual Studio. The Avalon graphics system would be using XAML to draw forms and whatnot in each program on the computer, if XAML can be extended to the web then it only makes sense for MS to want to use it. It's about like XUL as far as I can tell, except XUL isn't the basis for any OS's graphical environment.

Re:Wait a minute...

[ekuns]

But I know nothing about the XForms standard, so I can't speak intelligently about it.

You're absolutely right, because you make statements like this:

Microsoft is ignoring XForms just like everyone else. Microsoft would prefer people use XAML

Hey, at least I was honest and not trying to represent myself as being an expert on something I wasn't! Geez. The statement I made above that you have corrected came from the FA. I made the apparently mistaken assumption that the article author had a clue. I did RTFA before my post.

As far as XAML vs XUL, I wasn't aware that anyone had even proposed using XUL as a standard. XAML I was aware of.

Let's also not forget that Microsoft is a member of the W3C XForms committee.

That doesn't necessarily mean anything positive or negative, although it is a better sign than them not being a member of the committee. But membership on a committee doesn't mean a company has any intention of implementing the standard, nor that if they started with such intent they wouldn't change their mind if the standard went in a different direction. Witness the wide variety of CD/DVD writing standards.

But to be clear, I stand corrected on XAML not being a competitor of XForms and I apologize for my seemingly egregious error in assuming the FA author had a clue.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

[FoboldFKY]

...but aren't WHAT-WG and the W3C advocating two standards for different purposes?

I thought that Web Forms was seen more as an extension of HTML 4.0 forms to make building HTML applications easier, whilst XForms was to improve things like introspection/interoperability (at the cost of being close to impossible for mere mortals to grok)...

In my humble opinion...

[astebbin]

... this'll all turn out just like Beta vs. VHS with some initial worriement that resolves itself with one set of standards beating down the other and becoming the norm. As for the possible role of Microsoft... whoever gets Bill Gates on their team, wins.

Re:In my humble opinion...

[mrchaotica]

...except that Microsoft is pushing a third technology, XAML.

Re:In my humble opinion...

[OnlySlightly]

Please don't use the Beta vs. VHS analogy. Everyone used it for DVD-R vs DVD+R and we all know how that turned out. ;-) (Of course, I don't think anyone has any problems with all devices supporting both standards...)

Give me a break...

[ThePatrioticFuck]

I just love how :

"Apple, the Mozilla Foundation and Opera--is
threatening to revolt over electronic forms standards."

suddenly becomes Microsoft's fault :

"an outcome that has browser makers and others worried about the role of Microsoft."

Geezus guys, feeling a little insecure are we?

What's the difference??

[IO ERROR]

I actually read the whole article trying to figure out the main differences between XForms and Web Forms 2.0, and this is what I come up with:

XForms:

• Doesn't require scripting
• Is not backward compatible
• Microsoft doesn't support it

Web Forms 2.0:

• Requires scripting
• Is backward compatible
• Microsoft doesn't support it

No clear winner here, yet, but I'll put my money on XForms.

Re:What's the difference??

[ArmchairGenius]

Yeah the article was a bit confusing on the details, but I think that summary is accurate.

In addition to those two, there are other "standards" out there made by different proprietary makers. Microsoft has XAML, Macromedia has Flash MX, and Mozilla has XUL....

It sounds like the splinter faction is concerned about the lack of backward compatibility in XForms, i.e., it wouldn't be supported by their browsers and would probably require a plug-in.

Sense no current browser supports Xforms, this group figures that Microsoft won't implement it and instead use its XAML form specification. And since IE has over 90% of the market, that would make Xforms essentially irrelevant. XAML would become the defacto standard, and the spliter group's products (alternative browsers to IE) would not be able to implement the proprietary XAML standard. This would effectively lock thei products out of any corporate market that utilized form technology.

So it is a pretty big deal, and it makes sense that the splinter group members are concerned enough to take this action.

Re:What's the difference??

[thammoud]

You are making an assumption that developers will write for XAML. Did not really happen with Active-X and other technologies that MS tried to push down developer's throats. Open standards are important to Web developers. Do not bet on automatic success for XAML.

Re:What's the difference??

[0x20]

IE doesn't have over 90% of the market. Currently the number is somewhere around 60-80% and falling. Still too much, but the situation is improving.

Source 1: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp/
Source 2: http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm/

Re:What's the difference??

[fm6]

I haven't RTFAed, myself, but from what I've read elsewhere, you have it right.

Not a clear winner? Depends on who you are. If you want more powerful forms applications, but don't think that XForms will be widely implemented before the next Ice Age, then Web Forms is the clear winner. If you want a nice clean, well-specified, easy to implement forms specification, XForms is the clear winner. And if you don't care...

This is your typical W3C specification hassle. The W3C keeps grinding out really detailed new specifications, but seems totally indifferent to the fact that that these specs take forever to get implemented in the real world, if they ever do. It's not as bad as it used to be, since everbody except Microsoft seems to be on the standards bandwagon. (Netscape used to be militantly indifferent to standards.) But unfortunately, Microsoft still has 95+% of the browser market.

Re:What's the difference??

[leerpm]

XAML will be successful, on the Win32 platform. WinForms is going to go away. No one at MSFT is publicly admitting this yet, but there are lots of hints around. Avalon/XAML is going to be the next Win32 GUI API. But until it's well integrated with the Dev Tools, it won't really catch on. Look for XAML to really start catching momentum in 2007/2008.

Whether XAML will be successful on the web, well that is a different story..

Re:What's the difference??

[Trogre]

XForms: ...
* Microsoft doesn't support it

Web Forms 2.0: ...
* Microsoft doesn't support it

Not that that's a problem - we don't support Microsoft either.

Re:What's the difference??

[robmv]

See XForms working on Explorer

Re:What's the difference??

[0x20]

Dad?

Re:What's the difference??

[lost_n_confused]

Seems to me that if the browser companies ignore XForms it will die a slow death for general use. Specialized applications might require it. Not many users are going to want to use a website if they have to download special software to make a purchase. I go to a website and have to download anything I am gone unless there is a compelling reason why I need what is on that website.

Re:What's the difference??

[ZephyrXero]

Somebody needs to put an update with this link on the main article!

Re:What's the difference??

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

You are using a web developer site to prove your point about general market share. If we believe that 69% w3schools visitors use IE, than we really can't be sure that the current number for general populace is 60-80%, can we? If we take out w3schools and Upsdell out of the stats you provided, IE has an average of well over 80%...

I'm not saying your stats are worthless, I'm saying trying to prove anything about general web usage with those numbers is stupid or fraudulent.

Re:What's the difference??

[guet]

Whether XAML will be successful on the web, well that is a different story..

Perhaps Microsoft is hoping there will be no web after XAML?

Re:What's the difference??

[l0b0]

/me too, but only after developing a highly interactive XForms document the last few weeks at work. It's available at CVSROOT=:pserver:anonymous@isscvs.cern.ch:/local/r eps/moi for anyone interested in checking out a working example. Note that you need J2SE v 1.4.2_07 for install.bat to work...

Re:What's the difference??

[oliverthered]

XForms:

Doesn't require scripting
Brilliant, now I can turn off javascript so that I don't get popups or anything else.
Is not backward compatible
About time we ditched HTML and moved over to a standardised XHTML,(and no more font or br tags)

Web Forms 2.0:
Requires scripting
Idiots.
Is backward compatible
Idiots.

XForms was a little lacking last time I looked, but, I shall be recommending people avoid Web Forms.

Now, if only people would stop using DTD and move over to XSD, KDE supported SVG and ...

Re:What's the difference??

[rtb61]

Market share of one particular browser over another has nothing to do with the setting of standards. There are no stats on which browser businesses prefer rather than the overall market.

End users never make choices on the establishment of standards, businesses make those choices (as well as those individuals with sufficient knowledge who can actually make a real choice). End users just use what they are given to use.

I thought it was easy to set any software standard, ask Microsoft what they want and do the opposite.

Re:What's the difference??

[barrkel]

I'm not sure XAML will be that successful.

As a rendering and composition engine, it's OK.

Unfortunately, that's not all it is. It tries to dictate how you write your application, and expects every application to basically look like a web application, with back and forward buttons, and a page navigation model.

I can't see XAML taking of in its current shape, not without some serious pruning.

-- Barry

Irony?

[kdark1701]

I find it very ironic that Mozilla, an organization that touts itself as standards compliant, is party to making new standards. Making new web standards, by the way, is something that Mozilla chastizes Microsoft for.

Re:Irony?

[AndroidCat]

Funny, since Netscape at its peak was worse than Microsoft for shoving their own 'standards' at everyone.

Re:Irony?

[TLLOTS]

I think you'll find it more correct that Mozilla chastizes Microsoft for making new psuedo-standards based off of other standards, thereby using their monopoly to create a new standard that others either must support or face having their websites not function correctly. The creation of new standards isn't a bad thing, at least in the instance when they're used to address a need for additional functionality.

Re:Irony?

[Dasaan]

There's nothing wrong with creating standards, as long as they are implemented correctly and stuck to. It's when someone creates, or uses, a standard but doesn't implement, or use, it correctly that problems start to occur. Especially when it's done incorrectly deliberately.

Microsoft hasn't chosen a side

[shift.red.avni]

Last I checked Microsoft hasn't chosen a side of the argument. Right now it's the browser makers vs the plugin makers.

All-powerful forms

[flargleblarg]

Kid, I've flown from one side of the galaxy to the other and I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe that there's one all-powerful form that controls everything.

Re:All-powerful forms

[Ramses0]

Where is the +5 Hilarious option?

--Robert

Re:All-powerful forms

[bluGill]

Sure is one all-powerful form that controls everything: form hj-8452-lk-1, "Request to control issuance of forms."

Since red tape makes the universe run, he who controls who has a form controls the universe.

Re:All-powerful forms

[Anonymous Coward]

he who controls who has a form controls the universe.

That also sounds familiar...

The planet Internet, known as Earth.
Land of PCs.
Home of the users of web-forms.
He who controls the users, controls the forms.
He who controls the forms... controls the universe.
The W3C has proposed a challenge to each of the three great browsers.
"The browser that produces the most users shall rule the web.
"There are no fixed territories, and no rules of engagement."
Vast armies have arrived.
Now three browsers fight for control of Earth.
The noble Mozilla.
The insidious Opera.
And the evil Internet Explorer.
Only one browser will prevail.

Your battle for Earth begins... NOW.

(Man, that takes me back. It's been, what, 13 years now... ^^)

Re:All-powerful forms

[SpaceLifeForm]

Mod PP Funny.

Re:All-powerful forms

[Hard_Code]

And he who controls the spice...controls the forms...

Re:All-powerful forms

[Baricom]

Sure is one all-powerful form that controls everything: form hj-8452-lk-1, "Request to control issuance of forms."

I think you're confused. The correct form is 1040.

What's the point?

[Khuffie]

No matter what the 'winner' is, people will still be running older browsers that don't support the new technology. So, as a 'just in case' scenario, application developers will still be using whatever programming language they're coding in to do the verification and whatever it is they need in the background. Unless I'm missing a magical thing that XForms, XAML and Web Forms 2.0 would be doing?

Re:What's the point?

[PepeGSay]

web forms 2.0 would essentially operate withing the existing capabilities of the browsers, but provide a standard structure to provide the functionality. ala a "forms library".

Re:What's the point?

[l0b0]

For XForms you already have a Flash viewer and a server-side XForms to HTML + JavaScript implementation. There are lots more, but those are the only two I've tested which implement a good deal of the standard and are good-looking..

Re:What's the point?

[Khuffie]

I see immediate warning signs in both. Both rely on outside technology (Java/JavaScript/Flash), which the user not have installed, or has it disabled. So any web developer would still do all the background checking on the server-side scripting language he's coding in.

Re:What's the point?

[l0b0]

Then how about the Mozilla XForms initiative?

Also, when examining Chiba closer, it seems JavaScript is only relied on for slider and calender controls.

Re:What's the point?

[Myopic]

yeah, you're sortof right, but people did eventually stop using Netscape 4.6 (thankfully). standards do move forward, and in fact they have a fairly reasonable pace. most people use validating browsers now, for instance, even though most sites still don't validate. but a lot of them do.

xforms-- how long have we been waiting?

[helix_r]

We have been waiting for xforms for far too long.

Forms, the way they are now, are a mess. And the very very late introduction of the long-awaited xforms will serve to F things up even more because all the developer toolchains will have to be made compliant (or not). Its going a long and painful road.

Part of the blame goes to java (sun) and microsoft for screwing up and/or sabotaging the applet concept.

If things were done right, developers would be writing user-input pages as applets rather than a messy rat's nest of css, html, forms, javascript, jsp's, etc...

Re:xforms-- how long have we been waiting?

[BoomerSooner]

Forms are easy:
form name='frmBobsForm' action='loadinfo.jsp'
input type='text' maxlength='20' name='txtField' size='22'
input type='submit' value='Send Info'

Easy as pie.

Re:xforms-- how long have we been waiting?

[helix_r]

By saying that forms are a mess, I do not mean they are hard (by themselves).

The problem is the whole big picture of what needs to be done to get forms-on-web-page to work properly and meet all requirements.

In fact, I would argue that forms are too simple. That's why we need all the exessive junk on many webpages.

At some point, things will get so messed up that it will just make more sense to go back to an application (applet).

Re:xforms-- how long have we been waiting?

[geminidomino]

Easy as pie.

Vile, rancid, Hungarian-notation pie.

*LARTLARTLART*

Modding me down signifies your belief that Visual Basic (<-- Note: NO 'S' on the end, people!) is the greatest programming language ever.

(It's funny. Laugh.)

Re:xforms-- how long have we been waiting?

[helix_r]

Yes, applets are horrible.

It didn't have to be that way, however.

Standards

[sbszine]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

XForms too complex(?)

[janbjurstrom]

I read Joe Gregorio's take on XForms a while back. XForms seems to make everything regarding forms/interactivity unnecessarily complicated. (The standard might've been simplified since then, un-RTFA etc.)

Re:XForms too complex(?)

[PepeGSay]

he seems to think that regular forms and regular HTML will just go *poof* which is not true. there are a lot of business apps that desperately need a more complex way to do forms (preferably tied to XML somehow) but the average user *will* still be able to use plain old HTML forms.

Re:XForms too complex(?)

[janbjurstrom]

That could become an interop mess though (browser support, maintaining several implementations for a given site's interactions with its users) and on top of the current mess. I'm not all that hip to all of the w3c standards, but [backwards] compability seems pretty important on the web.

But perhaps compability is impossible to gain enough power, though looking at this 'newish' Web Forms 2.0 effort (which seems to extend existing standards in compatible yet quite powerful ways), it's unclear to me whether the pretty massive XForms will pay off.

E.g. will creating a non-trivial web-app become as complex as, say, writing a C++/Java/etc. client - and if so, without compability, why not do that instead (as XForms will never be that powerful)?

Re:XForms too complex(?)

[PepeGSay]

People seem to think that xforms *requires* you to code to all of its complexity. Which is not true. Their design allows for a great deal of complexity, but can be used in a much simpler form for simple interactions.

Like saying...

[ET_Fleshy]

FTA:

"The XForms group tried to do the right thing, but as a result they dropped backwards compatibility" ... "And I think that's very unfortunate, because trying to replace a few hundred million browsers is a rather hard thing to do, and I don't think XForms is 10 times better."

Seams comparable to gas stations "revolutionizing" the way fuel is pumped into cars with a new fuel nozzle. The only catch, it doesn't work with any of the gas tanks installed in cars today, nor are there any cars planned to support the system in the near future. "...however we believe our system is so much better that the world should conform to us."

Now while I am one who loves standardization, the idea that you can impose standards that render all known browsers obsolete is ridiculous. Most people can't figure out how to update their computer with security patches much less download a whole new browser gasp... it'll never happen. The industry will not just leave 90% of their customers out in the cold because they cannot support the new forms. On another note, I am glad to see that some people are not affraid to stick up for the average person and challenge the W3C's authority.

Re:Like saying...

[GloomE]

I disagree.
It seems to me that most people can figure out how to install all manner of junk on their PCs, or have it installed for them at the click of a button.
All you have to do is put "Free" or "Cool" or "My" in the name and you're all set.
There's probably no reason why the compatibility can not be provided in the form of of a plugin for 90% of existing users (you know who I mean), we could get all those SPAM mailer zombie trojan writers to "help" those without the ability or confidence to install new software.

Re:Like saying...

[Daravon]

Maybe something like this wouldn't be so bad. Imagine if Joe User went to order something online and was told "You must download IE7/FireFox2/(other browsers) in order to properly view our page". Joe User would then go get the latest browser. Recently at the ISP I work for people that have been running IE4 for 2 or 3 years have been calling saying "I need to install IE6 because this website I always go to told me that it's about time I upgrade" and then I point them to the right place and remind them that running Windows Update often is a good idea anyways.

Re:Like saying...

[ET_Fleshy]

Have you ever tried to talk an average user through an install process for anything? Yes you are correct, they are all very good at installing stuff that requires no user input, or user want for that matter, but when it comes time to do something useful... they muck it up. Even if we could get them to install it correctly, almost all of them wouldn't because people today use stuff with the thought process of, "if it doesn't work right away I don't need to use it," and they'll just move along to a different site that doesn't conform to standards. I can't honestly see a company willing to risk these chances of having their customers leave because we all know that they're too impatient to download something that will take over 5 seconds max. Even if all these obstacles could be overcome, it's foolish to think Microsoft will ever actually conform to the chosen forms... they can't even do CSS or XHTML properly and that's been out and accepted for how long?

Re:Like saying...

[PepeGSay]

Its really rather idiotic in fact, because the XForms implementation will not require replacing a few hundred million browsers. Whoever got that idea, just doesn't understand how it really works. The other ways of doing forms will still work. No one said "Oh no, you can't do forms with Perl or PHP anymore once .Net comes out."

Re:Like saying...

[Eil]

I was about to disagree with you, but as I was finishing up my last witty jab at your argument, I realized that you were right... but for the wrong reasons.

Case study: Despite being proprietary and not bundled with any operating system or browser at the time, Flash took off quickly, and well before a significant portion of the world's population was able to browse the web. But upon seeing site after site that required Flash because of all the cool things it could do, people muddled their way through getting it onto their computers until it was popular enough that they didn't have to. Specifically, they didn't have to bring their computer into their dealer and say, "Excuse me, could you upgrade my gas tank, err, web browser please?" They just downloaded the software, hit "OK" and went to town.

Now, the real reason standards-based web forms won't catch on has nothing to do with this, and more to do with that fact that 95% of the browser market won't have an upgrade available. Microsft refuses to make its browser compatible with standards that are going on a full decade old. Even if they would just fix the bugs that plague the current implementation of what they SAY they support, web designers would offer endless gratitude, but MS won't even do that much for their users.

What they will instead do is this: Release the next version of Windows (Longhorn) with IE 7, an integrated web browser containing all of the bells and whistles that made Firefox semi-popular, including tabbed browsing and easy-to-write extensions, and improved web standards support. Also thrown in will probably be a new forms implementation. After the new OS has been out for 3 or 4 months, MS will release IE 6.9 or so for XP and Mac OS X that's really just IE 7 with a couple of key features (like tabbed browsing) removed.

Users will forget that Firefox ever existed because the new IE will do basically everything that Firefox did only faster. There will no longer be a big incentive to switch, even if it is relatively painless. IE will do what they need it to, and it's already there, so they'll use it. There's even a good chance that the new IEs will break many websites, but hardly anyone will complain. After all, people forgot pretty quickly when XP and it's SP2 broke hundreds of legacy applications, they certainly won't complain about websites which can be easily fixed overnight.

Once IEs 6.9 and 7 take over the lion's share of the browser market, web sites will host tutorials on how to use the new IE features (including MS Forms) and web developers will quickly adopt them in their own applications. The only catch is that many of these new IE features (such as the new forms) will be difficult or impossible to clone by third parties like Mozilla and Opera. These browsers that hold the minority in market share will be ignored by web application developers just like they are today because "everybody uses IE."

And Microsoft will have won the browser war again.

Re:Like saying...

[wyldeone]

While your argument is...uh...interesting, the point where it totally falls apart is here:

These browsers that hold the minority in market share will be ignored by web application developers just like they are today because "everybody uses IE."

I know a lot of web developers (and in fact am one myself.) Even though standard support is extremely difficult in an era when IE holds a vast majortity of the market share, it does not stop of from developing with standards. When Microsoft implements XAML into their browser many web developers will not use it, because it cuts out EVERYONE except those on IE. Everyone. 10% is a lot of people if you're Amazon. Even with css, you can hack it so that it renders properly in IE. With XAML (which will be an IE only technology) there will be not hope of that.

Re:Like saying...

[Eil]

I wouldn't call my post an argument per se, more like a pessimistic extrapolated prediction. However...

When Microsoft implements XAML into their browser many web developers will not use it, because it cuts out EVERYONE except those on IE. Everyone. 10% is a lot of people if you're Amazon.

That is true. Web sites like Amazon, eBay, Google, and so on are likely to continue to make sure their web sites work with 99.9% of the browsers out there. They would be simply throwing away customers if they didn't. But many web developers, and in particular web application developers, design systems that will see maybe a couple hundred hits a day at the most.

I used to access a lot of elaborate internal Air Force and DoD web sites that were built out of custom-written frameworks that *only* worked in IE. A college that I used to attend had online classes that you could only participate in if you used IE. My bank's online banking app, until recently, only worked in IE because their flashy javascript menu specifically checked for IE. Where I work, we're currently trying to port a .NET application to Mono. It was obviously only written to be used with IE because the layout is horrendous in anything else. (Yet the docs stress up and down that it was written with accessibility in mind.) I can't access web sites for indie bands, non-profits, small businesses and many others because I use Firefox and Konqueror exclusively.

Many web developers do a good job at building sites which adhere to standards but have to add a lot of cruft to support IE also. But there are a great many more that still believe it's not worth their time and money to go out of their way to support 5% of the browser market.

Re:Like saying...

[Elder Entropist]

"MS will release IE 6.9 or so for XP and Mac OS X"

Microsoft has claimed that it WILL NOT release any versions of Internet Explorer for the Mac past 5.2

Around and around the mulberry bush we go

[SavannahLion]

Ok, the way I'm interpreting, "more sophisticated forms," is more hours spent trying to code websites to be compatible across different browsers. More hours spent adding and debugging code to check for the existence of support for a particular, "standard." More hours spent writing parallel code for users who support the new, "standard," and for users who don't. As well as yet another access point for virus writers to potentially exploit.

I like pretty forms to look at as much as the next user, but I'd rather have a fast loading site that gets me the information and products I want instead of having to deal with yet another pointless error message. I'm sure sites like eBay and Amazon might adapt this new specification, but not without using parallel code for those users with browsers who don't support it yet.

Re:Around and around the mulberry bush we go

[PepeGSay]

I see this being used heavily in internal or B2B application initially... so really browser difference problems might be shielded during the shakeout period.

Blasphemy!

[Otter]

A breakaway faction of the World Wide Web consortium (W3C) called WHAT-WG, or the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group...

Sorry, I'm holding out for the WHAT-WJD!

Re:Blasphemy!

[dahin]

Sorry, I'm holding out for the WHAT-WJD!

Or WHAT-WMD!

Re:Blasphemy!

[ET_Fleshy]

You're forgetting WJHI (would jesus hit it)

Re:Blasphemy!

[jalefkowit]

It was actually commented when the WHAT-WG was first founded that if they had thought a moment about the acronym, they'd have named it the "Web Hypertext Application Technology Task Force" instead... (go ahead, spell it out)

W3C making itself irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

The last 2-3 years the W3C has been so caught up in retarded politics that it's out lived it's usefullness. Rather than focusing on stuff people want like webservices, they've been focusing on semantic bullshit and RDF crap. I hear their funding is seriously going to get yanked because they haven't produced much. The pressure is on, but I think the W3C is clogged by beaurocratic BS.

Re:W3C making itself irrelevant

[CRCulver]

I would imagine that blind users, for example, are really greatful for that concentration on what you term "sermantic bullshit".

Re:W3C making itself irrelevant

[Ankh]

For what it's worth, W3C is spending a lot of energy on Web services -- we have a whole Activity devoted to it -- and much of the Semantic Web research is funded separately.

No, our funding is not being yanked -- I'd be (mildly) interested in knowing where you read that. W3C is funded partly by Member organizations, partly by grants and partly by host offices (ERCIM in France, Keio in Japan, MIT in the US). It's true that after the "dot com bubble burst" we had fewer Members and hence less income, but that's not the same as having funding "yanked" away from us.

As an employee of W3C I'll note that there's actually not that much beaurocracy internally. It's true that we have tried to raise the bar on specs that are produced, mainly by putting more emphasis on public involvement and on interoperable implementations.

As for "bullshit" -- the alternative to the semantic Web is to be doomed to a future of screen-scraping. In other words, the goal of that Activity is to find useful ways for people to share machine-readable information. If you feel there are better ways than RDF, and can demonstrate why, I'd encourage you to get involved.

You should take what I say with a grain of salt since I work for W3C -- I'm the XML Activity Lead and not directly part of either the Web Services or the Semantic Web Activities.

Liam

Storm in a teacup?

[Hortensia Patel]

Sound to me as if someone either missed the cluetrain, was having a slow news day and decided to invent a crisis, or swallowed some Microsoft FUD without checking his facts.

From the Web Forms 2.0 draft spec:

"This specification is in no way aimed at replacing XForms 1.0 [XForms], nor is it a subset of XForms 1.0.

XForms 1.0 is well suited for describing business logic and data constraints. Web Forms 2.0 aims to simplify the task of transforming XForms 1.0 systems into documents that can be rendered on HTML Web browsers that do not support XForms."

The Web Forms proposal is hugely important precisely because it can be implemented for IE using a "standard library" of client-side script. It won't be quite as nice as native implementations, but it'll work. It's the first evolutionary proposal I've seen that actually makes allowance for the festering carcass of IE holding everybody else back.

Re:Storm in a teacup?

[elbobo]

The problem comes in from the splitting of resources between XForms and Web Forms 2. Browser developers aren't necessarily going to work on both, so one will get implemented and the other wont, at least in the short term.

Time is an issue, because Microsoft's solution is possibly only a year away.

So while the Web Forms 2 crowd say there's no conflict in their FAQ, implementers are being put in the position of having to make a decision.

Re:Storm in a teacup?

[metamatic]

Right, and Mozilla already has XForms support in testing.

So what we need is a way to transform XForms into crap that IE can use, so that those of us who build web sites for a living can use XForms and have a link saying "Hey, IE users, the site will still work but you'll miss some cool features, upgrade to Mozilla".

The W3C is a follower not a leader

[CpILL]

Most of the big standards that the W3C has published to date are more about documenting and unify existing technologies that have already emerged (i.e. HTML, XML, RDF). This XFroms thing would seem to be the first major thing they have tried to pioneer where all the major vendors have their own interests at stake.

I would be expecting more solidarity from the Mozilla side of things but I guess there is big business there too now. The web is about sharing where business is about Darwinism. This sort of problem has to be resolved if the web is to progress.

As for XForms, what can you do with them that you can't do already? Less Javascript perhaps? Is that worth having to support 3 separate technologies? If it doesn't get resolved then I know I'll just stick to the current standard as it will always be supported.

Re:The W3C is a follower not a leader

[srussell]

As for XForms, what can you do with them that you can't do already? Less Javascript perhaps? Is that worth having to support 3 separate technologies?

Heck, yeah.

Until you've had to author a complex, generic, forms toolkit for an inflexible organization that refuses to allow any applications that aren't XHTML and Javascript, you'll never truly understand how necessary this is.

The way I see it, there are three possibilities:

1. Organizations will stop trying to use the web browser as a user interface to applications, or
2. We'll keep trudging along with the XHTML and Javascript nightmare, and we'll forever be doomed to browsing a web where "this page was designed for XXX browser, and doesn't work with yours.", or
3. Something like XForms will succeed.

(1) will never happen. Never. (2) is just too painful to think about. (3) may be a little painful at first, but is certainly less painful that (2) and vastly more probable than (1).

--- SER

Re:The W3C is a follower not a leader

[srussell]

if you can't handle "complex" forms then get the fuck out of web development, there is no complexity to the issue at all. fuckwit.

Based on the sophistication of your reply, you're obviously a highly intelligent person. I'll try to answer your deeply intellectual comment.

My problem isn't with "complex" web forms. My problem is the fact that any non-trivial form (IE, most of the ones generated in this organization) end up being over a megabyte not including another couple hundred K for the reams of Javascript that are neccessary to drive the forms. This pretty much brings IE to its knees, and maintaining all of that is a full time job; trying to keep it working in a cross-browser fashion aggrevates the situation.

Incidently, I'm not in "web development". I have to do web development on occasion when management makes poor design decisions and I can't shovel the shit onto someone like you. Only an idiot would think that HTML is capable of providing a suitable UI to a complex application, and only a Visual Basic reject would consider Javascript to be a suitable language for large-scale application development.

Pthhhhffft.

--- SER

Succeeding standard

[Anonymous Writer]

None of these companies or organisations are going to dictate what the used standard will be. As usual, it will be the porn industry :P

Re:Succeeding standard

[grazzy]

And on behalf of the porn industry: we'll settle for whatever gets the chicks nekkid.

Re:w3c sucks

[handslikesnakes]

Let's see here...

1. eliminating the exaggeration eliminates your point
2. so use HTML instead of XHTML
3. you're wrong
4. see 2.

Re:w3c sucks

[W3bbo]

a) Using CSS instead of the tag actually uses less code if you need that "font style" a lot in a page or website.

b) XHTML is based of XML, therefore all XML rules (including code termination) must be met. If you've got a problem with this, go back to SGML based HTML4.01 which allows this

c) In CSS you can have a as wide as its content, use: "width: 0; overflow: visible;"

Full height-sidebars? "height: 100%;"

d) Attribute="value"s have to be completed in order to comply with XML spec, as I said earlier, SGML-based HTML4.01 is more flexible....And you forgot to close your element properly ;)

The W3C Standards exist for a reason and many are devised by people who, lets face it, are waaaay smarter than both you and I. If you've got a problem with this, then join one of the W3C Working-Group Mailing lists and ask them yourself.

Obligatory Deliberate Karma Whoring

[Eil]

"The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from." -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

Chicken and Egg Problem

[buckhead_buddy]

I get the feeling that the problem with adopting XForms is the "chicken and egg" issue of current browsers not supporting it so current websites would look like they were moving in REVERSE if they supported it.

It looks like nothing will get the current standard adoption out of NEUTRAL (XUL, XAML, XForms, or some proprietary tech) unless it can be compatible with the current browser tech.

Web Forms 2.0 offers something that the web sites could adopt that would still be backwards friendly to Internet Explorer. It's the lubrication that can get the websites to move their tech forward.

It seems that Apple and AOL are on the cusp of a new major browser release things are just about to be pushed into DRIVE. At the very least, this "super scripting" solution of Web Forms 2.0 looks like a way to push the website providers into an upgrade cycle for everyone.

My guess is that there's no significant reason this was done outside official W3C procedures other than the rapid speed of making changes, but it looks like they're planning to submit things to the W3C for the full, slow, tectonic ratification.

XUL? XAML?? Flash???

[idlake]

XUL and XAML are general markup languages for GUIs. And Flash is a complete runtime.
The notion that XUL and XAML are substitutes for a forms standard makes about as much sense as saying that a C compiler is a replacement for a web browser: just add a little bit of code yourself. I guess we should count our blessings that at least they aren't proposing to use Java.

XForms is specifically for forms: things you fill in and submit. XForms also has facilities for off-line filling and mailing of forms. We need a standard like that.

Having said that, I find neither XForms nor Web Forms 2.0 particulary persuasive. XForms suffers from second system effect: there is just too much of it. And Web Forms 2.0 seems like a mess; reliance on JavaScript is a no-no.

Thanks, but not thanks: everybody should go back to the drawing board. Maybe in another few years, they'll come back with something reasonable.

Re:XUL? XAML?? Flash???

[DeanEdwards22]

And Web Forms 2.0 seems like a mess; reliance on JavaScript is a no-no.

JavaScript may be used to provide legacy support in the client (browser). However, Web Forms 2.0 is intended for implementation by browser manufacturers. Because it is based on existing HTML forms technology it is potentially implemented quite quickly. No Web Forms 2.0 site should ever assume that the client supports WF2 so there should always be proper validation for legacy browsers. This is being a good web-master anyway.

Re:w3c sucks

[hsoft]

I'm all for css, but the last time I tried "height: 100%;", it didn't work in all browsers (I think it only worked in IE). I love CSS, but we must admit that it is sometimes a pain in the arse.

Give me a break

[FyberOptic]

This is exactly what I've been talking to lately with people about the W3C. They're becoming useless. They have these factions and everyone wants things done one way or another, nobody agrees, and nothing gets done to help the people. And like in this case, it only creates new problems.

And they apparently won't even consider taking any of Microsoft's adaptations to the standards into consideration, even though many times some of these changes are actual improvements. IE is such a superpower that the only way we can ever have ONE standard is to start blending everything together. At the rate we're going, the browser compatibility divide will only continue to INCREASE, not get better.

So really, why should Microsoft give any credibility to these standards and the people behind them when they can't even agree with one another on such important things?

Re:Give me a break

[the_2nd_coming]

because their market dominance in the browser is decreasing and has gone below 20% on many active websites.

Re:Give me a break

[Anonymous Coward]

Yawn. Yet another anti-W3C troll. I swear you guys are getting more and more obvious. Take this blatant lie, for example:

And they apparently won't even consider taking any of Microsoft's adaptations to the standards into consideration

Then how do you explain display: inline-block;, which started out as an Internet Explorer extension to CSS? If their stance on Microsoft is so clear, then surely you'll be able to point me to a statement a W3C member has made saying such a thing?

So really, why should Microsoft give any credibility to these standards and the people behind them

Microsoft helped develop both HTML and CSS (check the credits in all the specifications), and have given a lot of money to the W3C over the years. You are quite simply ignorant.

Re:Give me a break

[FyberOptic]

And now comes the expected name-calling. This is of course typical and makes me take anything you say here or in the future with a grain of salt, but I will put aside your childish behavior for the moment and reply to what you say, for the benefit of anyone else reading this. Whether Microsoft had a hand in the creation of HTML or CSS is beside the point, and has nothing to do with what I was talking about. The point is, there are many things, primarily with languages such as Javascript, in which Microsoft has deviated from the official specificiations, in many cases adding very useful functionality. While the W3C may include a few things here and there from Microsoft, this has mostly been because nothing fundamental was being changed to add it, and/or they had no such feature previously. As a result, you have people like the Mozilla Foundation who are so completely anal about specificiations that they adhere very strictly to how things should be, giving no room for error. This causes huge problems for the internet community, and results in many sites just not working correctly. Opera realized that following the standards to the letter like this was not a smart move, and because of their more open-minded attitude about everything, their browser is much more compatible with the web at large than Mozilla or Firefox is. So, like my original point stated, if we are to have any hope of creating a single standard for which the web can work with, the W3C is going to have to stop being so stubborn and accept more of these changes that Microsoft has implemented on their own. Not just additions, but changes to the languages themselves. Like in Javascript, allowing one to access an ID'd element in the page directly, instead of having to go through document.getelementbyid or document.images, etc. You can access SOME things directly in Firefox (albeit get warned for not following specifications), but other things you cannot. IE lets you access any ID'd thing directly, which is a very logical approach. Or you can use getelementbyid to try and be more compatible with Opera if need be. But even that function isn't as robust when you try to use it in Firefox, forcing you to use yet other methods to make your code work with it. Many of these standards are just not rationally implemented. One can argue that Microsoft had no place to create and change things in the first place, but the deed is done and the browser is dominant. If the standards and the people that make them want to remain useful, they're going to have to play catch up. I mean really, in this day and age, one should be able to do something as simple as rotate an image on a page without needing a plugin like Java or Flash. These kinds of things should be doable in the browser by now. But, only Microsoft has made such a thing happen. A very useful feature, which can't be taken advantage of to its full potential, because only IE supports it. So it doesn't matter how much money Microsoft puts into the W3C. It's certainly not working very much to bridge the gap in standards. Only the W3C itself can do that.

Re:Give me a break

[FyberOptic]

And I of course forgot to tell it to use plain text to catch my line breaks!

Re:Give me a break

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

As a result, you have people like the Mozilla Foundation who are so completely anal about specificiations that they adhere very strictly to how things should be, giving no room for error. This causes huge problems for the internet community...

There is another POV: The laxness of earlier browsers is what caused the huge problems:
- rendering is different between browsers, because no-one knows how malformed HTML should be rendered.
- countless of hours have been poured on developing quirks modes, when real work on security and new features could have been done instead.
- new features can't be added, because they would break existing quirks.

We can break cycle, if we want to. I will be painful but worth it.

W3C is going to have to stop being so stubborn and accept more of these changes that Microsoft has implemented on their own. ... Like in Javascript, allowing one to access an ID'd element in the page directly, instead of having to go through document.getelementbyid ...

We disagree on who is stubborn, but regardless: You never really told us how the javascript solution is worse than the microsoft solution?

I mean really, in this day and age, one should be able to do something as simple as rotate an image on a page without needing a plugin like Java or Flash.

I believe I have just been trolled. Well, I'll bite: That has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. It's a friggin' web browser. You know, for reading web pages, not editing images in them.

Have you measured the startup time and memory footprint of your favourite image manipulations software lately? Would you like them to be added to your browsers startup time and memory footprint?

Re:Give me a break

[FyberOptic]

Here we go again. I'm so wrong wrong wrong! How dare I have a difference in opinion!

I never insulted the W3C or the people there, I merely pointed out my point of view on how they're doing things, where as the original replyer directly insulted me on more than one account. This is typical of people around here, as soon as someone puts out some kind of contradicting view, and as such, if one can't maintain intelligent conversation without resorting to name calling, I have no use for that person.

A lot of what you said is only managing to try and twist my words. Who developed the standards was never ever the point, as I've tried to say, and anyone can in fact go back and read it to prove this. The point was where the standards have gone SINCE that time. Microsoft has taken many of them in their own direction. This means that just because it was originally supposed to be one way, that doesn't necessarily mean that's how it can stay, since obviously Microsoft's stance on the matter isn't going to change, and they're not going to suddenly change how their browser works at this point. It's up to the W3C to try and bridge this gap Microsoft has created, because nobody else can do it.

I also think it's kind of pointless that you replied with your name the first time, then anonymous the second time, only to give yourself away in that paragraph.

And what is with people like you instantly screaming that I'm lying about stuff? What possible reason in this universe would I come here to lie anything? You need to relax already. The last thing on my mind is posting a comment which will result in this type of response, but people just naturally see things I say as flamebait, since they're incapable of reading it and processing it without immediately attacking.

I also agree that Microsoft has decided to release IE7 due to Firefox's increasing numbers. However, this just shows that Microsoft isn't going to let any other browser step on its toes. They've always managed to stay on top, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. It also means probably even more new things will be implemented.

And again, with your next to the last response, you twist my words again. Why must you insist on making me out like a bad guy? My original point, if you go back and actually read my words and not what you want to read into them, is that who created the standards has nothing to do with anything anymore. What happens now with the standards IS the point, and has always been my point since the very beginning of this conversation. The only thing that matters is what the W3C does to try and make things more compatible in a Microsoft world. And my very original statement was that I didn't think they were doing enough to BE compatible. Just go back and read it already. I'm not going to argue with you about it when it's right there.

And lastly, I will in fact give you credit for the images and getelementbyid, because I was thinking of the wrong thing at the time. However, trying to get form elements is a whole different story.

Re:Give me a break

[FyberOptic]

You do have a point, and I never wanted to sound like I was defending Microsoft for what they did with standards. There SHOULD be one central place who creates these things, and everyone should follow them. Unfortunately, this just doens't happen. In Microsoft's case, this is probably partially due to profit reasons. The more custom features they develop, the more reason people have to use that browser over another.

I also want to point out that while I said I felt the W3C is stubborn, I'll point out that I feel Microsoft is the same way. But, as I said, they have enough power to throw their weight around on the issues, and if standards don't live up to what they want (or if they don't exist), they tend to just make their own. I don't necessarily agree with this, but the fact remains that it's been done, and something has to happen now to try and fix things. Microsoft is surely not going to be the one to help competing browsers be more compatible, which leaves the task up to the W3C. And, as I was trying to point out in my post, it's just not happened yet.

And trust me, "trolling" you was not my intention at all. Hear me out on this one.

Say you have a section of html, in a table and such, with dynamic images and text based on the current user, arranged to look all nice. But perhaps, for whatever reason, you want this rotated 90 degrees to the left (or any angle for that matter) on some pages, so that it can fit nicely in the side of page out of the way, and have a neat look to it at that. IE is not only capable of rotating images, but entire sections of html in this manner. It's really an awesome feature if you ask me. I truly wish this was capable in other browsers because of all the possibilities it opens up.

And no, it's not for editing images. It's merely for rotation of content (among other things). I shouldn't have to use Java or Flash to manipulate a single component on the page in such a way these days. And you can't always get the same appearance using these 3rd party plugins to do it, either.

You mentioned startup times, but as I said, IE already does these things. IE runs and starts faster than Firefox, which doesn't do these things. I don't want an image editor in my browser. I just want them to be able to do what IE can already do.

Re:Give me a break

[FyberOptic]

I overlooked part of what you said when I replied.

As for the javascript thing, countless pages on the internet teach how to develop javascript based on IE's leniency of standards. If some budding web developer needs to know how to do something, and checks Google for an answer, chances are they'll find a page which explains it for IE. Or they'll come across MSDN, which is a wealth of easy to access information. This causes many pages to get developed around IE's implementation of the standards, and then pages just break in other browsers. I've seen this so many times. This is why I said that the standards need to somehow take Microsoft's changes into account, to fix this vast problem. Trying to maintain a seperate "correct" set of standards when Microsoft isn't following them is just not working.

Re:Give me a break

[FyberOptic]

What I do have a problem with is people who utter complete falsehoods. Repeatedly. And when somebody shows that they are utterly wrong, trying to squirm out of it by saying that they said no such thing. That's disingenuous and it makes you look like somebody who is badmouthing people to try and provoke a reaction.

You have failed to explain where I was pointing out total falsehoods, and only continue to reply in ways that are attempting to make me appear hostile and false. I have never attempted to "squirm out of" anything I said, as I still stand behind it.

I'm also perfectly capable of admitting when I'm wrong, which I just did in my last post with a javascript issue, but apparently you decided to ignore that.

You also keep failing to see that these are opinions, and not facts. I take your replies also as opinions, and don't resort to insulting your character based on what you think of the issues at hand.

If they actually acted like you describe, they would be acting like petty children. But they aren't acting in the manner you describe. Have you backed up your original claim that they intentionally ignore Microsoft yet? Where did the W3C say that?

As I said, you're twisting my words into what you want them to sound like. If you go back and read my original post, again, you will see that the wording I used clearly stated that the factions of W3C were not getting along, and couldn't agree on important issues, resulting in this browser divide. That's what the very news story at the top of this is about! How you got "acting like petty children" out of any of my words is totally your own doing.

My opinion on how the W3C is ignoring many of Microsoft's standards is of course not backed up by any word from the W3C. Why would it be? It's based on how I view what the W3C has done over the years. This is my opinion, as well as that of many others. The fact that you're asking for proof to an opinion only further proves your goal is to only try and start conflict.

You keep talking about how much Microsoft is involved with the W3C. Well you keep failing to mention all the entirely proprietery features they continue to add to their browser, despite these things not being part of the standards. If they were so interested in sticking to those standards, as you claim they do, then why is there still such a huge rift in compatibility in certain languages, which doesn't seem to be getting any smaller?

Dunno. Probably the same reason people come here and post GNAA or Goatse stuff; they think annoying people is funny.

The difference in this, and what you're implying that I'm trying to do, is that people usually ignore crap posts from people like that. The very fact you've chosen to reply this many times proves that you feel the need to defend your beliefs against my opinions. And even if you did feel my posts were filled with nothing but lies and trickery, the simple fact that you would continue to reply to them only shows that you're interested in conflict.

But yes, I did in fact say that them ignoring many of Microsoft's versions of the standards is a huge detriment to the web. People want to follow standards, but when they do, they tend to end up not always compatible with the dominant version of that standard (aka, Microsoft's version). You can call my opinion false if you choose, that doesn't make it stop being my opinion. That said, me having this opinion should not give off an impression of dishonesty or ignorance no more than I consider your opinions to be that way. You can read whatever you want into it and try to make me sound wrong, but it won't change what I really said here or how I think about these things.

So really, while debating these issues has been interesting, the fact remains that we'll never agree, and you'll only continue to reply with personal accusations, so there's nothing more to say.

Re:Give me a break

[the_2nd_coming]

woops.. I meant 80%. inverted my figures.

Actually...

[game kid]

...I'm waiting for the OHHKAAAY-WG and the YEEAAAHHHH-WG.

It doesn't scare me too much, I know how to make HTML forms and (as the old "Chevy Van" song goes) that's all right with me... I guess we'll soon abandon the "relic in Internet time" known as HTML 4 soon though (not sure when that'll happen at Slash"HTML 3.2 Final"dot--just look at that DOCTYPE in the page source...).

Priorities.

[Asprin]

Mozilla, Opera and Apple are allied? I don't even have to know what it's about to know which side I'm on.

Hmmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fron TFA:
The W3C is saying the answer is XForms. Microsoft is saying it's XAML. Macromedia is saying its Flash MX. And Mozilla is saying it's XUL.

The "standards" committe is saying one thing; Microsoft is saying another; Macromedia is saying another and Mozilla is saying yet another!

Did I misunderstand just WTF a standard is?

Parent not a troll

[Swamii]

Ok, so the everybody at 1% is off obviously, but come on he has a valid question -- is this a case of everybody vs. MS?

Re:Parent not a troll

[Zeinfeld]

Ok, so the everybody at 1% is off obviously, but come on he has a valid question -- is this a case of everybody vs. MS?

Not quite, the issue is not just the browser providers, the browser users and the application developers also have a significant stake.

Apple is most usually conspicuous by its absence in standards forums. They may write standards based stuff but I don't run into their people very often. Firefox is represented in W3C but its difficult to get resources together as a volunteer effort.

I really don't see why a standards war over forms is meant to help anyone.

Re:w3c sucks

[W3bbo]

"height: 100%;" only works when an element has a parent with absolute height. You need to set "body { min-height: 100%; }" first. Of course, CSS2.1 still does have short-comings where are the only viable way to achieve a particular aesthetic effect. But I stress this is in the minority of cases, and there's almost always workarounds. Just remember kids! "If in doubt, do without!"

Re:w3c sucks

[aka.Daniel'Z]

If anyone needs a little help with the imagination part, I suggest checking out The CSS Zen Garden.

It's a bit tricky to get some tableless stuff right, but in the end it's way better: most of the stuff (not only the colors and fonts, but positioning and sizing too) can be easily changed, and things get real clean when generating pages dynamically.

Since when does IE still have 95%?

[tepples]

But unfortunately, Microsoft still has 95+% of the browser market.

Really? I know W3Schools.com is biased toward web developers and thus toward savvy users, but its February 2005 stats show 25.1% Gecko share (Mozilla Suite + Netscape 7 + Firefox) and only 69.2% IE 5/6 share. Or are you counting Gecko on Windows as a Microsoft client?

Re:Since when does IE still have 95%?

[fm6]

No, I'd definitely count any Gecko-based browser as non-Microsoft! But, as you say, W3Schools.com is obviously not representative. Ordinary users are less picky about their browsers, and hence tend to use IE just because it's what they have.

I do find it encouraging that IE6's share at W3Schools has been slipping since the middle of last year.

Re:Since when does IE still have 95%?

[oliverthered]

Who do you think put the 'must run on IE' stickers on the web sites in the first place. for sure as hell it wasn't uses.

Haiving said that a good webdav should have a reference book not the basic and sometimes bad reference provided by w3csools, so I should imagine that w3csools is more collage / junior centric than professional centric. so my whole argument moot.

From someone uncomfortably close to the action...

[persist1]

[What follow are my opinions.]

This battle is barely on developer radar, as far as I know. Those on the bleeding edge are using .NET and/or XUL as per ideology and having a great time.

The mantra for nine years has been that one needs to validate on the server, because the client can't be trusted.

This comes down to servers vs. clients in the end... server manufacturers and server software publishers want to be able to control the whole pipeline through the standards, at the potential cost of breaking backwards compatibility in web user agents, and bloating their code in the bargain.

Meanwhile the w3c is far out in front, the same way it's been with CSS2/3 and other tech.

The Web Standards Project, to which I am attached, has taken a wait-and-see approach. This is due mostly to resource constraints, but also because we're loath (as a group) to take the side of any publisher or group of publishers except in defense of active Recommendations, or in opposition to precedents that would hurt the user community as a whole (such as RAND licensing and the Eolas suit).

When everything's said and done, the greater interest is in a fair standard that's likely to be followed, even if it doesn't manifest the most intelligent solution.

col and colgroup: Bug 4510

[tepples]

Firefox ignores backgrounds on <col> and <colgroup> even though the standard explicitly allows them.

Bug 4510 happens because a cell inheriting style from both a parent <tr> and a pseudoparent <col> would inherit conflicting information. Should it follow the style of the <col> or of the <tr>? CSS specifies no way to resolve multiple inheritance. What is the Right Way, with documentation?

Re:col and colgroup: Bug 4510

[Anonymous Coward]

Backgrounds aren't inherited anyway, they're just layered over each other. The 's background takes precedence.

Task Force

[AlexeiMachine]

The WHAT-WG is more than a working group now. I fact, they're an actual task force!

Let's hear it for the WHAT-TF

Re:Task Force

[Phrogz]

As some friends I know online refer to them:
The WTF-WG

What trouble?

[mnemonic_]

A breakaway faction of the World Wide Web consortium (W3C) called WHAT-WG

According to the WHAT-WG page, "Many of the members of this working group are active supporters and members of the W3C..." So it seems they themselves do not see WHAT-WG as a "breakaway faction."

And if they actually rejected the W3C, why are they planning to submit their proposal through the standard W3C pipeline? Why not attempt to bypass or ignore it? If WHAT-WG are against the W3C, they would not be planning to cooperate with them.

It looks like this WHAT-WG is just another group submitting another proposal to the W3C. Yes, that proposal conflicts with an existing W3C one. But that doesn't indicate anything about turmoil in the W3C. It's just another potential standard that happens to have the same goal as another. Competition of standards in the W3C is nothing new.

Re:It's ABOUT FSCHK'N TIME

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck are you on about?

A well designed website will work fine in Lynx, and look FUCKING great in Moz, and even better, still work for disabled people.

Why? CSS, data seperation. HTML == Define data, give it names (with id/class). CSS==looks.

You just KNOW how this is going to end up.

[Caspian]

Microsoft is going to get a plan together, crank the condescension generator up to 11, and say "There there, now, you see what we've always said about "forking"? Let Mama Microsoft make it all better." They'll then proceed to release their own standard via the usual culprits (The Gartner Group, PC Magazine, every other PHB news source). The geeks like us will whine about it, but Joe Businessman will smile and nod and go with the "standards" of the newly-minted Microsoft Web Pro Standards (or whatever silly name they'll call it).

No, YOU suck

[fm6]

Just because you can't understand the concept of separating content from presentation, doesn't mean its not useful. Here's a simple demo: get a CSS 2.0 compliant browser (Firefox 1.0 will do) and go to att.com. Do File->Print Preview. You'll actually see a different version of the page, one that leaves off the flash graphic and explicitly lists the link URLs.

Later, there will be versions for cell phones, and text-only displays. All possible because the formatting is not specified in the HTML.

If you want to spend the rest of your life hacking out table-based pages that are impossible to maintain and not viewable except on precisely the same display you tested it on, fine. But the rest of us are moving on.

Re:The bell tolls

[pjay_dml]

That is exactly WHAT-WG is about...if you check their mailing list archieve, you will find, that in their case, it has been a cooperative effort between those that build browsers, and those that build sites.

Everyone against inertia

[buckhead_buddy]

Swamii paraphrased the legitimate portion of the troll: "is this a case of everybody vs. MS?"

This appears to be everybody against inertia; and Microsoft appears to be on the side of inertia. As another example, Dave Hyatt (a development lead on Apple's Safari) posted a tale about similar problems dealing with the inertia of the float handling in CSS:

Next I tried WinIE, and this is the part that blew my mind. Depending on whether the float was an image or a table, the float was left or right aligned, the table specified that it floated via the align attribute or the float CSS property, and on whether or not the normal flow element was declared as a sibling or not of the float, I could get completely different results! The level of inconsistency was astonishing.

I was able to watch WinIE do clipping in one case, to wrap in a second case, to not wrap in a third case, to overwrite content in a fourth case, all by just tweaking the parameters outlined above. It's no wonder Web designers have no idea how to code a page to standards when they have to deal with a layout engine that is so horribly inconsistent and buggy.

Like CSS adoption, the problem with XForms is the lack of backwards compatibility with the old de-facto standards. Now with major releases coming soon (Apple in the first half of the year, Mozilla before May) it's looking like XForms can move forward by offering pretty baubles to web developers and browsers with these backwards-compatible, familiar, tweaks to encourage upgrades (and while you're at it we'll be in a better place toward Xforms 1.0 or 1.1 adoption).

Recent standards?

[Grendel Drago]

Recent W3C standards have been a complete joke...

Really? I thought CSS was frickin' brilliant.

--grendel drago

Re:Recent standards?

[King Babar]

Recent W3C standards have been a complete joke...

Really? I thought CSS was frickin' brilliant.

The dude said recent back there. CSS 1.0 dates from 1996 with a revision in 1999. CSS 1.0 is now finally reasonably well-supported by modern browsers. CSS 2.0 was first a recommendation in 1998, but wasn't able to be completely implemented until the standard was fixed. CSS may be brilliant, but CSS 2.0 is a 1998 idea. Somebody born in 1998 would be turning 7 this year. CSS 3.0 is still be hashed out. Recent W3C standards have not (yet) had anything like the effect of CSS, and even CSS 2.0 was very slow to get above a threshold of support.

True.

[BoomerSooner]

Maybe people should quit trying to screw in a nail with a hammer. Any really complex web interfaces my company builds use Flash which works on Linux, Windows, OS X & even PocketPCs.

If your interface is very complex it would make more sense to build a web-enabled application for clients instead of a web-browser that brings problems like pop-ups, etc with it.

Just my 2 cents as a developer (I do both stand alone & web-based apps at my company).

Re:True.

[magefile]

Maybe people should quit trying to screw in a nail with a hammer.

Aside from concerns regarding accessibility, bandwidth demands, etc., Flash has one major flaw. It costs way too much - I don't have $500 to spend for Flash MX, much less $700 for Flash MX Pro.

I'm generally not an open-source-is-better-than-closed zealot, but in this case, open standards that people can use regardless of whether they can afford a several hundred dollar development application are far superior. Particularly when the task at hand (building forms) is not something that requires a program as complex as Photoshop (yeah, there's Gimp, but ...) or Maya (or 3D Studio Max, etc.).

Re:True.

[BoomerSooner]

Not really. In the grand scheme of things what's $700? Could you build an alternative for $700? I charge $100/hour for custom development for my clients and they pay without a problem. Not being able to provide the solution they desire be it flash, jsp's, stored procedures or anything else doesn't matter to them if you cannot do the job because you won't buy the tool.

Try and convince a carpenter that he doesn't need that power-tool set he uses because a normal screw driver and hammer does the job just as well.

The thing you're missing is the opportunity cost. It's pumped up in Business School but it is the most relevant thing anyone can learn.

Buy $700 software product, get $10,000 account.
Offer alternative customer doesn't want, save -$9,300.

Which would a rational business person choose? There is a reason people buy proprietary software. Normally it's because it is better than the free alternative. Yes there are exceptions (apache, linux, ...) but a solution is frequently more than one tool or software product. It is a set of tools and software products that work together to achive the desired result. I own 3 companies and 1 runs exclusively on OSS the second has a mix and the third runs 80% MS Software. They all have different needs and the solution that was the easiest to implement and maintain was selected.

Frequently you cannot find an OSS product that will match feature for feature a purchased product. So what do you do? Wait 6 months for an internal software team to develop the tool for you at a cost of 100's of thousands of dollars and missed development on the core product your company is built on? Or do you simply buy what you need? My guess is Adobe doesn't have their own internal C Compiler to build Photoshop. Now they may use Borland, Visual C or any other available tools but it is unlikely they do it internally. Hell I remember when they released the first program I bought (Photoshop) that used MMX instructions and thinking it was a big deal (since it required assembly to use the registers).

In life and business sometimes you have to spend money to make money.

Re:True.

[magefile]

You missed my point. Flash is great - but for web forms much of the time it's like using a power screwdriver to tighten your glasses. Now, you could say, "well, if I have it anyway, why not use it?" (sunk cost argument). The counter is that there is a better tool for the job - and one that you can count on being able to use even if you lose access to Flash.

I agree that you often can't find an OSS product that matches a closed product. But if I have an OSS product that does what I want and has some advantages over the closed product (in my example, bandwidth, etc), then it would be foolish to use the closed product.

Spending money to make money is fine. Using an overly complex or expensive tool for a job, especially one that locks people out (for example: what if I have 3 Flash developers and 3 web devs doing forms, should I buy 6 copies because one of the Flash guys wanted to help out, or should I tell him to learn XHTML/Javascript if he wants to help?) is stupid.

I do web dev for local businesses to pay for college. Not big jobs, just small stuff. If I spent $700 to buy Flash, that would eat up the money for at least one job. So while you may want to use Flash because you have it, I don't have that luxury - and the same is true for many web developers.

Re:True.

[BoomerSooner]

I said for complex forms use flash. 99% of my business web apps don't use flash. If you'll read my original posts you'll see that is what I was advocating, Flash when simple html based forms aren't an elegant solution.

Windows vs. The Browser Part Deux

[ChicagoDave]

A truly paranoid person might believe that all the way back in 1995, Microsoft saw The Internet, installed The Browser, and did Two Things. The first plan was to adopt The Browser paradigm and do it well. The second plan was to start trying to figure out how to move The Customer back to Windows. This has manifested itself in ActiveX Controls first, and now in little over a year, Longhorn with XAML.

We know what a rotting piece of tripe ActiveX was. We shall say no more on that subject.

What do we think will happen with Longhorn and XAML though? Let's speculate!

First of all, I think Longhorn will arrive without Internet Explorer technology embedded into the OS. I still think they will have some html rendering technology in the OS, but it won't be as ugly and insecure as their current Windows incarnations.

I think the .NET Framework 3.0 will be 10 times bigger than 2.0, probably close to a gig in disk space required. Within this not so tiny nut will be all of the necessary compiled components required to render a Windows application from managed code.

Then XAML. You will then be able to click on .xaml files in any browser on a Longhorn machine and control will transfer from the browser to the OS+.NET 3.0 where that xaml code will turn into managed code and render a fully functional and current Windows application.

In looking at XForms, Web Forms 2.0, and then speculating on the nature of Longhorn and XAML, and knowing many business customers as well as I do, I think Microsoft will win a large mindshare of the the Fortune 500.

After that it's all a big toss up because below the "enterprise application level" you could mix and match any of the upcoming technologies.

I almost see a splinter in two directions. The Browser will maintain all e-commerce and global corporation applications and Microsoft will still strongly support this area of development.

But where departmental and Intranet applications come in to play, Longhorn and XAML will win a ton of new development and lock out the newer web technologies.

The simple truth is that most users can't stand web applications. They don't mind doing their online banking in them, but if they're working in the treasury department of a bank, they prefer Windows applications (or office type apps built into Excel or Access).

Anyway, this all hinges on Longhorn being locked down and enormously secure. I think that's the #1 key to its and XAML's success. If MS can pull that off, the W3C people and its splinter groups have a whole other thing to worry about. If Longhorn comes out flaky and insecure, XAML will take years to gain any headway and none of this will matter.

But if I were on the W3C board, I would be hedging bets that XAML and Longhorn will succeed and start planning on how that will play in future efforts. I don't see XForms or Web Forms 2.0 competing with XAML though. Something else will have to do that.

Note: It's just speculation!

XForms is backwards-compatible, including IE

[mdubinko]

I happen to have recently surveyed XForms engines, and at least two of them under development run entirely within the client, in the style of gmail, Google Maps, Flickr, etc.

Modern browsers are up to this, it just takes a (one-time) engineering effort, treating JavaScript as a full programming language.

Of course, if browsers like Mozilla natively support XForms, all the better. -m

Trying to get a picture straight

[The OPTiCIAN]

I'm new to this, but this is what I understand to be the problem:

Current situation: firefox is ascendent, with other browsers making up ground as well. It's the first time in years that the consumer has felt that browsers other than IE can do their job, and they're turning to alternatives because of new features they offer.

One group in w3c (including Microsoft) are advocating a start-again approach to web forms. This is XForms.

The other group fear that if that happens, in the confusion, Microsoft could push forward its own proprietary solution, supporting it with more vigour than XForms. Consumers will be back in the hole of having to use IE to get their work done.

The result of this would be: alternative browsers will be locked out of the marketplace, and the potential of the internet to offer a low cost of entry to new players (described at length by Paul Graham in _Hackers and Painters_ will be compromised, at least in the medium term, because Microsoft will control the APIs and delivery of the web.

Re:And the winner is....

[dustmite]

-1 "Lame paid 'guerilla marketing' attempt" .. hint: don't sound like a marketing brochure when you're trying to fake grassroots product support.

Ah, webforms! :)

[Spy der Mann]

For me it doesn't sound like too much trouble. It's just part of the evolution of HTML. The thing here is that they're submitting it to the W3C. Think of it as "instrumental regulations" vs. "wacky patents".

In my case, i developed a very similar javascript which uses additional tags in html, to automate validation of html forms. I just add the tags saying how this number should be validated, etc etc.

I read the web forms spec. It's cool, it even has regex testing. See, in the era of the XML-hype, there was this thing that everybody thought would be cool. It was called XForms. But in the end, they were simply too complicated to implement.

Web forms were designed to make things much more simpler. And AFAIK, Microsoft never aims to make things simpler, but rather the opposite (proprietary formats, bells and whistles, etc). So I think this webforms thingy can't be bad.

Six times?

[tepples]

Therefore making your entire post a moot point.

True, W3Schools and Yahoo! have different audiences and thus different biases. Every site has a bias. But do you really think the defection from IE is six times as much among savvy users than among the grandmothers whose computers the savvy users maintain?

Re:Six times?

[westlake]

But do you really think the defection from IE is six times as much among savvy users than among the grandmothers whose computers the savvy users maintain?

Windows installed base is in the hundreds of millions, leaving Granny is pretty much on her own. There just aren't that many Geeks to be found in the wild.

Re:Six times?

[geminidomino]

You're assuming a 1:1 ratio of geeks:lusers, though. Allowing between 4 and 10 lusers/geek, you can get a bigger chunk.

Last month when I was getting my tires replaced, I saw a man, about 80 years old, wearing a "getfirefox.com" hat. Thinking it may have been a gift from a geek friend, I complimented him on it. He proceeded to evangelize Firefox like it was the best thing since sliced bread, and using obvious luser words ("those windows that come up" instead of "pop-ups", "lock up" instead of "crash", etc.)

Totally made my day (and I needed too, after spending $400 on auto maintainence. =\

Web Forms is to XForms as Windows was to OS/2

[Geof]

Web Forms is to XForms as Windows was to OS/2.

XForms is The Right Thing; Web Forms is Worse Is Better.

That's my general impression from the little I've read. XForms is loaded with coolness, but the spec is huge and it pulls in bits of other complex specifications, like XML Schema and XPath (as I recall). It's not straightforward to implement and that's a problem: witness the state of support for CSS 2.1 (let alone CSS 3).

Personally, I'm a fan of Worse is Better. We can have improved forms now and evolve towards something better. Right now, XForms promises little more than a dream.

Re:Web Forms is to XForms as Windows was to OS/2

[elbobo]

CSS 2.1 and 3 are actually not necessarily all that complex. Although for implementers there's probably a reasonable degree of complexity in covering the breadth of what's defined as possible with CSS3.

I like taking a pragmatic stance where necessary, so Worse Is Better has its place in my mind. But I don't believe this is one of those places, primarily because one of WHAT-WG's defining mantras is backwards compatibility in IE. Backwards compatibility in other browsers isn't a concern, because they have the developers of them on board. So they're specifically tailored their specs to be backwards compatible in IE. This stunts the potential considerably.

We know from what Microsoft have repeatedly said (or rather, not said) that IE will not be implementing any more of the currently standing W3C specs. IE is a dead leaf on the standards tree. So why try and drag it along for *just* *one* *more* iteration, at the expense of functionality and cleanliness across the board?

It strikes me as short sighted. All it does is delay the inevitable split between Microsoft's browser and everyone else's. It buys a couple of years, maybe. But eventually the time will come where either the other browsers give in and implement whatever technologies Microsoft have forced into de facto standards (XAML?), or they shore up their strengths, stick together, and win the web back with standards. Thus forcing Microsoft to implement the standards in order to stop the shrinking of IE's market share.

By making this next iteration work in IE (and in turn stunting it), they're actually sabotaging their position in that future inevitable split. Short sighted.

Third base

[Sajma]

Q: What's the name of your working group?
A: Right.
Q: "Right" is the name of your working group?
A: No, WHAT is.
Q: What is what?
A: WHAT is the name of my working group.
Q: That's what I just aksed you.
A: No, that's what I just told you.
Q: No, no -- just tell me the name of your working group!
A: WHAT.
Q: I said, tell me the name of your working group.
A: WHAT.
Q: WHAT'S THE NAME OF YOUR WORKING GROUP, DAMMIT!?
A: Right! But my name's not Dammit...
(strangling noises)

Re:Third base

[LakeSolon]

Bravo. Well done. And you saved me the trouble of posting my own rendition.

~Lake

Look at it from MS's standpoint

[tkrotchko]

They've got IE7 coming out "someday", but in the meantime, if there's a new web forms standard, that just costs them money to support it and there's not payback for that support.

I'm not saying they're right. I'm justing pointing out that from MS's viewpoint, the status-quo is just fine right now.

Re:Look at it from MS's standpoint

[notthe9]

it costs them money to support it

Since when have they put any effort into supporting new standards?

(note: there is a level of seriousness here)

So, having both might be good?

[darkonc]

"..... Web Forms 2.0 aims to simplify the task of transforming XForms 1.0 systems into documents that can be rendered on HTML Web browsers that do not support XForms."

OK: So this backs up my gut feeling that allowing both is actually a good thing. XForms is for peoplw willing to go to a brand new browser, and WebForms provides a backup method for people staying with old browsers, while smoothing the road for the final move to a pure XForms platform.

I'm actually getting a feeling that the problem is with TFA, which might actually be springing from FUD.

Not War

[DeanEdwards22]

This is not a war. Many of the WHAT-WG members are also members of the W3C.

The Web Forms 2.0 specification is an extension of the existing (and antiquated) HTML Forms specification. It adds some new elements and attributes some of which are alarming omissions from the original spec. Things like standardised date and number input controls will be a boon to web developers. XForms is a quite different technology. And it may be some time before it has the penetration to be a mainstream development tool. In the meantime, Web Forms 2.0, by extending existing HTML forms functionality gives developers a familiar framework to build on.

If you are looking for any political angle then notice that Microsoft are not represented in the members list. [I can assure you that they were invited.] The WHATWG are about web applications. We need a standardised extension to HTML to stave off the immediate threat of XAML. Web Forms 2.0 and the upcoming Web Apps 1.0 are meant to do just that.

MOD EVERYONE BUT PARENT DOWN

[js7a]

The parent comment is the only one in this entire article which boththered to RT pertinent part of TFA.

Re:MOD EVERYONE BUT PARENT DOWN

[Hortensia Patel]

Thanks for the plug, but I wouldn't want anyone to think I was conscientious or anything - I'd read the XForms and Web Forms specs already.

As ever on /., by the time someone has actually read TFA (and linked material) on an unfamiliar topic, there are so many posts already that informed posts can't get seen to be modded up.

I've actually used xForms in application dev.

[jjn1056]

It was a bit hard to grok at first, but at that point my developers all have xslt coding experience which made things easier in the end.

Once we got going we all started to feel like this is the future of webforms.

the xforms model also really fits into a REST model really well, which is the direction most of my news web apps are moving.

Haven't seen this competing standard since the first draft, but back then when I read it it seems like what we got (which is a mess really) with some extra stuff adding in, like automatic looping. Hopefully it's a lot better now.

IE is broken, and the public is learning why

[tepples]

Your typical user has no reason to fix something that isn't broken to them.

The news media, with the help of the Mozilla Foundation, have done a good job of painting Microsoft Internet Explorer as broken lately, specifically because of spyware and worms that spread through various vectors within IE.

Re:IE is broken, and the public is learning why

[tepples]

but to someone that doesn't do anything beyond typical end-user tasks (web browsing, online bill paying, playing Solitaire) it works just fine.

I knew that, and that's where the news media come in. If they can convince the public to associate "IE == viruses", then even the less computer literate will be afraid to perform "web browsing, online bill paying, playing Solitaire" using IE.

WEB FORMS 2.0 DOES NOT REQUIRE JAVASCRIPT!!

[DeanEdwards22]

The idea that Web Forms 2.0 requires JavaScript is a fallacy.

JavaScript may be used to provide legacy support in the client (browser). However, Web Forms 2.0 is intended for implementation by browser manufacturers. Because it is based on existing HTML forms technology it is potentially implemented quite quickly. No Web Forms 2.0 application should ever assume that the browser supports WF2. There should always be proper validation for legacy browsers. This is being a good web-developer anyway.

Fixed a mistake

[mindaktiviti]

During the battle, Mozilla
spies managed to steal secret
plans to the Empire's
ultimate weapon, INTERNET
EXPLORER 7, an armored web
browser with enough power to
destroy an entire Windows OS.

No need for thanks, I'm here to help.

or better yet...

[Thumpnugget]

Sorry, I'm holding out for the WHAT-WJD!

Personally, I'm holding out for the WHAT-TF!?!? Shouldn't be long now...

Re:w3c sucks

[Omega Blue]

Parent g0t Insightful??

Don't use that ... you can do it in CSS and it only takes 3 times as much code!

This completely neglects the fact that if you need to change the layout, you only need to deal with one file, instead of hundreds of files. Of course, you don't need 3 times as much code to use CSS, which leads me to believe author of parent doesn't know what he's talking or was trolling.

All tags must be terminated explicitly. Because it happens so often that you need to nest a directly within another , with nothing between them.

Never seen anything like that. Though the example has nothing to do with terminating tags. Another case of a confusing or confused person.

CSS can do any styling you want! Unless you want a centered div that's only as wide as a content... or a full-height sidebar... then you're just screwed. (hint: use tables instead)

Sigh. We are looking at one really ignorant person. For example, you can definitely do a full-height sidebar. Just take a look at the numerous examples on the Web about multiple fluid columns.

too many Xs and too much confusion...

[QunaLop]

this article is terrible, it raises a lot of confusion and muddles the waters...

first of all XUL and XAML have nothing to do with this, they are both application layout languages, not data field and validation languages, why the auther mentioned them, i don't know, IMHO they are both great, and have nothing to do with the W3C (beyond that they are built on top of XML) they are not web standards, and no one is trying to claim they are as such.

The arguments the involved parties have are very logical:

application developers aka "XML Purists" : (IBM, SUN, NOVELL, etc)
Want the cleanest, best solution for their big clients that are tired of shitty javascript forms, they want it to work seamlessley with other XML applications in a big friendly XML web service world.

active browser makers aka "if it works, don't fix it" (opera, mozilla, apple)
are afraid of spending time/money/effort into technologies that aren't adopted, they are more than happy with HTML+Javascript for forms, since it "works" and no one has to do any work that possibly will never get used, thus they back WebForms which is more of the same...

microsoft
i truly believe microsoft has no interest in developing a web browser anymore, they took up the torch because they saw what everyone saw around 10 years ago - web browsers (netscape) sucked horribly, they brought about a new world to the web with IE, but its time as passed, and i think everyone will be happy when it dies, even microsoft - so i don't think they really care what form technology gets adopted, as long as they don't have to pay more IE developers.

What's the problem?

[ZephyrXero]

Am I alone in saying that I don't really see such a big problem here as the article would make out? W3C supports HTML and XHTML..... why can't it support both XForms and Forms 2.0? Just have both....use the Forms 2.0 for backward compatible and transition until people are ready to use Xforms instead..... I see Forms 2.0 as a midway point between current forms and Xforms....these things always take time, and remember people, these are standards, not requirements! Let's not give MS something they can use to say "ha! you should have used our proprietary standards....those 'open' guys can't make up their minds!" That's not a good situation for anyone, not even Microsoft if they would use a little foresight.

What difference does it make? Validate on the back

[Mustang Matt]

I don't get it.

With HTML forms or XForms or any other forms, a good developer is still going to validate all the data on the backend.

The only bad thing about the potential scripting in Web Forms 2.0 is that the script engine developers have previously made their script engines a security nightmare. (Microsoft mostly but Firefox hasn't been security hole free)

It is everywhere!

[mbaciarello]

But... Can't you see the Form is everywhere? Even as I speak to you now, Brother, I can feel it's all part of a Form!

I, for one, would like to welcome our new overlords!

XForms

[zemoo]

People keep saying that none of the browsers (especially IE support XForms so it will never take off.

What they fail to realize is that XForms is not necessarily a client-side technology and can be used *right now* in ALL major browsers.

Take a look at Chiba for a server-side implementation that works pretty well. No plugins to install!

The Table Has Turned

[AmberBlackCat]

I think it's interesting to note, in this case it's not Microsoft who is diverging from the standard. Rather, it's everybody except Microsoft. From reading the article, it seems they have a good reason (backwards compatibility) to diverge. Still, it's interesting.

I always stayed away from depending on javascript, although I used it a lot back when I typed out webpages with a simple text editor. But I don't think it would be a problem for these new forms to depend on it. Yes, people can disable javascript but people are more likely to have a browser with javascript enabled than they are to have a browser capable of handling the new forms. Maybe the preferences can be set up so disabling javascript also disables web forms 2.0.

Re:The Table Has Turned

[dolphinling]

No one's diverging from the standard. No browsers currently support WF2, and I highly doubt any will before it is completed and submitted and accepted by a standards organization.

Web Forms 2 exists to lessen the dependence on javascript for things like client-side validation, not increase it.

ZDNet article inaccurate

[superskippy]

According to the WHATWG specification, their work isn't intendeded to replace XForms. So I think this entire ZDNet article is a troll.

CSS-layout is not that great

[rseuhs]

The W3C Standards exist for a reason and many are devised by people who, lets face it, are waaaay smarter than both you and I.

The GP may be a troll, but he has a point.

You know what's great about HTML? It's putting the content into a form that can be displayed optimally on all resolutions, browsers, etc. with the preferences the user wants.

However, the CSS-layout simply isn't doing this very good, CSS is more optimized on those terrible pixel-based fixed-everything layout.

Just go to css zen-garden (Google will find it for you) and you will realize that well over 90% of all these CSS-designs are fixed at 800 pixel-width and are thus simply worthless crap.

I once tried to design a webpage with CSS-layout which should have a menu which should have a minimum width of 100 pixels but should grow as needed and should never overlap with the actual content.

I just wasn't able to do it with CSS, it never worked. As soon as you played with the browser window and/or font-sizes, the menu and the content would overlap and form an unreadable mess. (Before posting any wiseguy-responses, try your solution with a really narrow window, like only 100 pixels wide - it will almost certainly overlap.

While tables are not perfect and it's really annoying to define which columns should expand and which shouldn't, it just works and once you got it right, it works reliably - and it works in all browsers.

That said, CSS has many great uses as a way to reduce redundancy (through classes, etc.).

Re:CSS-layout is not that great

[Anonymous Coward]

CSS is more optimized on those terrible pixel-based fixed-everything layout.

That simply isn't true. With HTML, you have the choice between using pixels and percentages. With CSS you have the choice of pixels, percentages, ems, exs, inches, and probably a few others that I forgot.

Just go to css zen-garden (Google will find it for you) and you will realize that well over 90% of all these CSS-designs are fixed at 800 pixel-width and are thus simply worthless crap.

Go to any websites whatsoever and you'll find that 90% of them are fixed width. Newsflash: 90% of everything is crap, and there are a lot of incompetent web designers out there. It doesn't matter what tool is used, they-ll produce fixed-width designs, and if they can't, they won't use it.

What was your solution? Forbid pixels from being used in CSS? Even though you don't criticise HTML for having similar features? Even though it would mean it wouldn't be widely adopted?

(Before posting any wiseguy-responses, try your solution with a really narrow window, like only 100 pixels wide - it will almost certainly overlap.

Either put min-width on body or use display: table-cell.

While tables are not perfect and it's really annoying to define which columns should expand and which shouldn't, it just works

No it doesn't. You are just so familiar with table layouts, you automatically avoid the problem areas without thinking about it. Try pretending you don't know anything about HTML, and read the specification. You'll find all sorts of things that tables can do. Then try doing them. You will fail because you didn't account for browsers screwing up.

Re:w3c sucks

[guet]

Don't use that font... you can do it in CSS

heh, when recommending the use of FONT elements you obviously haven't looked at the source of the page you're posting on : )

Re:w3c sucks

[Ezku]

Full height-sidebars? "height: 100%;"

Which planet do you live on? I really wish it was that simple. According to the CSS spec, height: 100% is the exact same thing as no height property at all, except when the block is absolutely positioned - in which case it will fill the viewport, but nothing more. I gave it a test run yesterday, and browsers (IE6/FF1.0/O8b1) acted very inconsistently.

In short, having an element with 100% height (other than body or html), like in the good old days of table layout, is an impossibility with CSS. I find it hard to understand the reasoning behind this.

The goal that CSS has is admirable and while it is plagued by things like flaky browser support *cough*IE*cough* and some stupidities like the aforementioned, it's a great tool when used right. But still... it doesn't give me absolute control over the looks of my site as I would like it.

I have mod points, but...

[DevilChiken]

I'll simply correct your statements, as there is no -1 Wrong available.

Microsoft is going to release IE7 *this year*, for Windows XP. You may confirm this by checking out blogs.msdn.com/ie.

Betas of IE7 will be available this summer. No feature set / improvements have been announced, but it will almost certainly contain all of the features you described (Except XAML support).

Also, a good bit of 'IE7' might be done. MSDN posted an exercise for users of Visual C# Express Edition Beta that used the ' .Net2 browser object' to create a custom web browser, complete with tabs, tear offs, etc. I have the beta of VS 2005 and did the exercise (it took about 20 minutes), and had a WTF! moment due to the project rendering sites differently than IE6.

(New html rendering engine, perhaps? I honestly don't know. I took almost 4 hours to install VS Net 2005, so who knows what's in there...)

Funny...

[hummassa]

lots of black-hat and spyware developers seem to love ActiveX ... :-)

Different markets, different browsers

[davids-world.com]

If you look at particular user groups, you'll see a very different picture. When I got slashdotted a few weeks ago, I found some interesting things in my website stats. Only some 25 percent of visitors (coming over from Slashdot) were using IE. A whole lot of people ran Macs, and the percentage of non-Windows users (that is: Linux, OS X and few others) was far greater than 50.

Re:Different markets, different browsers

[davids-world.com]

You better read my post again. My stats are not 'skewed', they are just sampled from a different population, or, if you want to be exact, from a subset of the general population that the original post was talking about. My whole point is that if you want to address a particular user group, you'll get a different distribution of browsers.

You conjecture that there is a correlation between intelligence and browser usage. While you'll probably see this effect (I agree!), it would be smarter to think about 'computer literacy' and 'technical competence' as the factor that gets people to choose a different browser.

A few points for you to consider...

[DevilChiken]

First, Version 2.0 of the .net Framework is still in beta.

Second, one of the whole points of the .Net framework is side-by-side deployment. That applies to the framework itself, not just apps developed with .Net.

For example, I have versions 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 beta installed on my machine. I can write an app using VS Net 2005 that targets 1.0, even though VS Net 2005 comes with version 2.0. So it really doesn't matter what version of .Net ships with Longhorn (expect 2.0, maybe 2.x), as no one will have to develop for it.

Hint: This is why MS touted .Net as the end of DLL Hell.**

Another hint: This is why Microsoft can never 'break' Mono. Even if Mono, by some disaster, is not able to keep up with .Net version x.x, it will always be able to run 1.1 apps.

Third, Microsoft is releasing IE7 this year (betas available this summer). Note that this is a full year ahaed of Longhorn, and that XAML is not supported on XP.

And last but certainly most important is that XAML is not a web forms language. In Longhorn, it is the counterpart to <asp: /> tags, for creating Avalon applications.

Let me say that again. XAML is intended to be used to develop Windows applications. Not web apps. While XAML (Windows) apps can be run within the browser, the default behavior is to run as a Windows app, in its very own top level window. Or <canvas>, if you prefer the XAML notation...

You are likely correct in speculating that XAML will become the preferred intranet platform of choice for Windows only shops, but developers have been able to produce Windows only intranet apps for years now, without even touching IE.

It's called a smart client: A Windows forms app connected to a web service.

** Having contracted for MS, I am amazed that they were able to develop anything before .Net. DLL Hell may be bad for users, but it's a lot worse for developers.

I remember being tasked to modify a team member's app once. I check out the source, made the adjustments, compiled, and checked the source in. When the app was run, it had a logic error. After several hours of debugging, I was baffled. A code review found no problems with my work. The original developer, on a whim, checked out the code and complied it. It ran perfectly. I was like WTF?!

I had version 4.2.x of one of the DLLs used in the app on my box. He had 4.1.x.x. Go figure.

Re:What's the difference?? - Timing

[podmf]

"Microsoft won't implement it [XForms] and instead use its XAML form specification. And since IE has over 90% of the market, that would make Xforms essentially irrelevant ... So it is a pretty big deal".

You are so right, and the decisive factor is timing.

Given the fact that everyone but Microsoft (EBM) can implement backwards compatible Web Forms 2.0 pretty much immediately, and the fact that XForms has no chance of achieving widespread delpoyment before Longhorn arrives, people who are serious about standards-based (in practice) have virtually no choice at all.

In the short term, standards practitioners have to support Web Forms 2.0 and to argue for its adoption by W3C. The only alternative is to sit on the sidelines whingeing, while hordes of MS-only web developers gradually transform the web into a .Net walled garden.

As the coexistence of transitional/strict HTML and XHTML (or CSS and XSLT) demonstrate, there is no reason why you can't have two or more competing standards covering the same area, especially when one can be considered a pragmatic precursor/pre-requisite for the other.

If XAML is the success that Microsoft hope for, there will simply never be any signifiant implementation of XForms.

Re:w3c sucks

[Monkeyman334]

I agree. I want a div that is the same height as a div next to it. Care to offer a suggestion?

Re:What difference does it make? Validate on the b

[shis-ka-bob]

This is exactly why asp web applciations scale poorly. You can decided to hold off and do all validation on a final post. But that isn't user friendly. If you validate each input using server controls, every control causes a round trip to a single server that has to access the user's session varables and respond. Client computers often use about 3% of their CPUs, so anytime you can move the validation to the client, you will make the application more responsive and you will reduce the load on the server. Client-side validation can be a big win UNLESS you have two users fighting over a single record (e.g. on-line reservation system) or when the amount of data needed to do the validation would be prohibitive (e.g. In principle, I can almost always figure out the state and city from the zip code, so you can write a web form that would autopopulate the, downloading every valid state/city/zip combination in the US so you could autopopulate the city and state values web form. I know that there are zipcodes that span city and even state borders, but they are rare and a dropdown with two cities is much nicer than a dropdown of every municipality in California.)

In my opinion, a good web developer will use server-side validation as a last resort.

I disagree

[Mustang Matt]

I didn't say don't validate on the input side, but you can never trust code that's running on the clients side. Ultimately re-validate everything on the backend because you never know when a malicious user is screwing with you.

In my opinion, a good web developer will user server-side validation for every single form that gets posted.

Browser Statistics?!

[daveshawley]

Okay, I've seen a lot of people posting that IE has 95%-99% of the browser market. Can anyway show evidence supporting this? I did some browsing for web statistics at various sites and found reports from as low as 54% to as high as 89%. The average from ten different reports is that IE has 71% of the market. I'm not trolling here... just injecting a little reality adjustment. You can find the reports that I used by google'ing "browser usage statistics". Dave.

Re:Browser Statistics?!

[MortimerGraves]

Averaging might not be all that useful as different sites have very different audiences. IE usage at Slashdot will be very different from that at cnn.com and different again from Sourceforge, etc.

Trending may be more useful; looking at stats for the same sites, the same user population segment, over time

January stats from TheCounter.com, which looks like it might offer reasonable stats for a range of fairly "general" sites, shows IE6 + IE5.x = 88% This is down from IE usage mid-2004 at the same site (93%), a usage level that had been fairly consistent for the 6 months previous.

Looking at the trending for the past three years on W3Schools, which its more technical user population, shows a drop in IE usage from 86.8% in Jan 2002, through two years of relatively little change to 84.1% in Jan 2004 and then a steady drop over 2004 until 69.7% in Jan 2005.

Sourceforge shows a drop from 74.8% in Jan 2004 to 58% in Jan 2005.

IE usage is falling at different rates (and from different heights) at different sites, but the overall trend is downward. There may have been a time when IE had 95-99% use on some sites, but that appears to be in the past.

so...

[Run4yourlives]

how well do your sites work for folks using:

Screen readers?
Text based Browsers?
Blackberries?
WAP?

Exactly.

Re:You know the saying

[ruzel]

Flash is NOT evil.

When it's used properly there are things that flash can accomplish that HTML and Java simply can't.

Saying Flash is evil is like saying guns are evil. Flash does not ruin user experiences, designers that use it to make eye candy ruin user experiences. It is totally possible to use Flash is a beneficial and useful way. It's just not used for that most of the time,

Re:HTTP Forms ARE highly scalable!

[ekuns]

I spoke imprecisely. You're right, as far as processor power goes, pushing validation to the client end helps a system scale. However, you still have to validate input on the server end as well if you want to be secure and safe against malicious mis-entry from people working around the scripting. Notice that it was scripting that I said didn't scale, not the separation of user agent and server. Scripting a form is one way of validating or automating input at the user agent end, but none of that allows you to skimp in input checking on the server or application end.

But as I said, I was speaking about the code maintenance end of things, not processing power. I wasn't clear. My fault.

When I code a web page with a lot of scripting, I tend to separate the JavaScript into a separate file for scalability purposes -- because most of the work I have done involved dynamically generated pages. By putting the Javascript into a separate page, the web server (rather than the server generating pages, whether it be PHP or JSP or whatever) can serve the static content. That helps scalability. However, it also means that now information about a form is in two separate locations: The HTML of the form, and the Javascript file containing the scripting.

It was in that sense I was saying scripting doesn't scale. It increases maintenance work and the likelihood of making a mistake. However, if you can cleanly represent in one location the form and the set of allowable values, the code will scale better (as far as creating a large application that is cleanly maintainable).

Re:Well, it *SUCKED* anyway

[leerpm]

Uhm, WinForms != WebForms. WinForms is the API in the .NET BCL for creating traditional Win32 fat clients. Perhaps you are thinking of WebForms and ASP.NET.

Re:w3c sucks

[handslikesnakes]

1. you're still exaggerating (if not outright lying). if you're only applying that font to one thing on a page, you'll use a few extra bytes with CSS; in any real-world situation <font>s lose hands down.
2. no it's not.
3. 1. centred and the size of its content
   2. for a full-height sidebar you've got display: table; (which only fails because of IE), faux columns and probably a number of other ways that don't come to mind
4. yeah, but backwards compatibility is an important part of XHTML 1

Re:What difference does it make? Validate on the b

[the_greywolf]

This is exactly why asp web applciations scale poorly.

no, ASP applications scale poorly because ASP itself scales poorly.

You can decided to hold off and do all validation on a final post. But that isn't user friendly. If you validate each input using server controls, every control causes a round trip to a single server that has to access the user's session varables and respond.

i don't see how you come to this conclusion. form data is sent to the server in one big go. all of that data is there, ready for processing. adding some sanity checks for security purposes and a couple of basic processing techniques (such as a regex replace to convert characters to a more usable format) are trivial and don't necessarily cause more load on the server than the processing you're already doing.

Client computers often use about 3% of their CPUs, so anytime you can move the validation to the client, you will make the application more responsive and you will reduce the load on the server.

where did you get this magic 3%? on my computer, my browser uses 7% or more just while i'm typing this post. and besides, what makes you think the client itself is trustworthy? i can throw together a Perl or REBOL script in a matter of minutes that will pass any data i want to your application - bypassing completely your client-side checks. what was your point again?

Client-side validation can be a big win UNLESS you have two users fighting over a single record (e.g. on-line reservation system) or when the amount of data needed to do the validation would be prohibitive

irrelevant. if you're using a database server to drive your backend, you can generally rely on the database to properly handle race conditions - nearly all database servers in common use (MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Server, Oracle, DBi.... or even the filesystem your operating system uses qualifies here.) are designed to handle race conditions gracefully, and transparently to the application using them. some (like a homebrew CSV "database") are notorious for being buggy due to either poor testing, poor design, or both.

additionally, testing a list of zipcodes against a list of municipalities is trivial if you populate your database with this data. ...unless you're using flat CSVs for a high-traffic application. in which case, you're clearly insane - or at least masochistic.

In my opinion, a good web developer will use server-side validation as a last resort.

remind me not to hire you for any development project.

Re:w3c sucks

[the_greywolf]

i published my experimental blog on the internet for everybody. i used several techniques that require CSS2 support.

look at it in WinIE, and get a feel for the whole page.

look at it in *ANY* OTHER GRAPHICAL BROWSER and look again. neat trick, huh? it looks nearly identical except that nifty mouseover effect. and guess what? i tested in WinIE6 last. and i needed to make only one change to make it work.

i never excluded WinIE. WinIE excluded itself by not supporting one little cool feature.

Re:HTTP Forms ARE highly scalable!

[barrkel]

If your Javascript is generic, and simply links your form input elements to do immediate postback to the server (XMLHttp, somewhat similar to Gmail), you get code reuse.

Common validation patterns can be encapsulated into Javascript and sent down to the client either dynamically or via a "selector" parameter (e.g. masks, datatype). You can do this by sending a dictionary of information about the form to the client from the server (again, via XMLHttp).

If you do this right, your static HTML will only need IDs to be set on elements, and include a common Javascript library in its onload.

That's how we build applications where I work. I do all the server side stuff to make it happen.

-- Barry

Re:You know the saying

[Mycroft_VIII]

But are those things needed? My experiences with flash have uniformly been crap that slows things down and provides NOTHING I haven't seen done elsewhere without flash. I haven't had flash for some time now and the only thing I've noticed is a few idiotic sites like the one I mentioned and some missing adds or eyecandy that the site didn't need.
Yes calling it evil is hyperboly. I intended the comment as such and did lable it opinion. What it really is is anoying and uneeded. As an option for users with broadband who want the extra eyecandy and the (admitedly slight) risk increase that's fine. I have neigther the desire for that sort of eyecandy nor the bandwith to be wasted.
You are of course perfectly entiteled to a differing opinion, but web designers really should not cause a site to fail for lack of flash. That's just bad web design.

Mycroft

Re:HTTP Forms ARE highly scalable!

[ekuns]

If I had mod points (and hadn't already posted here, of course!) I would mod your post up. Looks like I need to do some research on XMLHttp. I assume you mean the XMLHttp JavaScript object? (It's an object I've not run into before and wasn't aware of.) From what you describe above, this could clean some of our "code" up quite a bit. (in quotes to represent HTML as well as JavaScript)

Re:HTTP Forms ARE highly scalable!

[barrkel]

Yes. The Microsoft version is CreateActiveX("XMLHTTP"), the Firefox / Safari version is new XMLHttpRequest(), AFAIK. I'm not an expert in client-side Javascript, though: I just do the server stuff.

W3C - Are they comlexity Junkies?

[xtronics]

I'm not sure anything after HTML3 was ever worth the addition of the comlexity involved.

Are these standards really going forward - or backwards? Will the new stuff run faster (I bet it won't).

Aside from css I have seen nothing to get excited about for W3C and much to dismay as the new HTML is getting hard for humans to read.