Fight over 'forms' clouds future of Net applications

(continued from previous page)

does, but not using today's generation of browsers.

XForms defenders downplay the revolution versus evolution debate.

"The Web has always had the approach of a bit of evolution here, a bit of revolution there," said Steven Pemberton, chair of the W3C's HTML and forms working groups and a researcher at the Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science in Amsterdam. "HTML 4 was largely evolutionary--it still ran in old software. But at a given moment, to make any progress, you have to add new functionality, which means that people have to get new software."

Pemberton blasted the scripting approach taken in Web Forms 2.0, saying it doesn't scale well, is harder to maintain, doesn't address industry requirements and use cases, and doesn't provide the ability to take snapshots of each step in a forms-based process for sensitive industrial or governmental applications.

"The WHAT approach works OK for small examples," Pemberton said. "But actors like the Department of Defense say 'no scripting.'"

Pemberton said the W3C membership hadn't shown much enthusiasm for WHAT-WG's work in the past, instead preferring XML-based standards.

By contrast, he pointed to XForms implementations by W3C members Oracle and Sun Microsystems--in addition to those by Novell and IBM--and promised more announcements of support in coming months from big companies he declined to name.

"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."

[Not Bugged]

Server-side validation/operation too

"With current HTML Web forms, a Web author needs scripts to do things like validate the form or add up columns as fields are filled."

These scripts can also reside on the server-side, not requiring any client-side validation whatsoever.

Server-side techniques are safer, because you don't have client-side depedencies, such as Javascript.

[silksterweb]

RE: Server-side validation/operation too

That is exactly correct, but then you have to consider the performance hit from going back and forth from client to server to client for validation. It's great for small amounts of data, but large amounts of data may cause the application to be significantly slower with server-side validation, hence a weaker user experience. I can go either way, but as a developer I'm anxious for the W3C to work this out soon.

[Ubber geek]

client-side validation

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.analogstereo.com/mercedes_g_class_owners_manual.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.analogstereo.com/mercedes_g_class_owners_manual.htm</a>

Open Presentation Platforms

A smart open presentation platform will address most of the issues raised. Such a platform will give you the option of server or client side or both for validation.

OPP will remove the deployment considerations for Portal, Online, Offline and RIA.

OPP will be platform neutral, allowing deployment to MS or Java.

OPP will manage the entire cycle of "forms development"

OPP will automate many programming tasks and part of the lifecycle.

www.edgeIPK.com