CNet's Paul Festa filed a story today, Fight over 'forms' clouds future of Net applications, with a subhead of "As Net heavyweights vie to define the next generation of Web applications, the Web's main standards body is facing a revolt within its own ranks over electronic forms, a cornerstone of interactive documents."
The article sheds some light on the WHAT-WG, as well as some of the players in this general saga. The most interesting section to me:
WHAT-WG members say the forms dispute illustrates a larger conflict over whether the W3C should proceed in a "revolutionary" mode, tackling problems from square one and coming up with technically elegant solutions--even if that results in the loss of backward-compatibility with older browsers--or an "evolutionary" mode, maintaining older technologies like HTML 4 and extending the usefulness of current browsing software.
I also enjoyed Steven Pemberton's comments:
"The WHAT approach works OK for small examples," Pemberton said. "But actors like the Department of Defense say 'no scripting.'"
"I understand where WHAT is coming from, but they are browser makers, not forms experts," Pemberton said. "It is important to build something that is future-proof and not a Band-Aid solution. Forms (technology) is the basis of the e-commerce revolution and so it is important to do it right."
[All emphasis mine.]
Filed on February 18, 2005 at 01 AM (Permalink) in these cateories:
- Accessibility, Internationalization, CSS Media TypesBrowsersEngineeringLayered Semantic MarkupSoftware and ToolsWeb Development
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Evolution vs Revolution in Web Standards:
The comments to this entry are closed.