There is a splinter group of browser makers with some heavyweight names like Apple Computer, the Mozilla Foundation and Opera Software called WHAT-WG, or the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group. They have their own ideas on what should be in the specification.
Now you must be thinking that Microsoft has to be in this mix somewhere _ and you are correct. Essentially there is the W3C, which is saying the answer is XForms, Microsoft, which says it's XAML, Macromedia opting for Flash MX, and Mozilla is saying that it's XUL.
Let's look at what is at stake here. Forms based on current web standards are used all over the place on the web. When you order something from Amazon, or surf with Yahoo, create you new blog entry or log in to a system somewhere, you are using forms.
The new XForms specification has advances on current technology but it not compatible with current browsers, so everyone is going to need a plug-in to use the technology. By contrast, Web Forms 2.0 is compatible with your browser but relies on scripting, which some people say is not good enough for corporate applications.
WHAT-WG will submit its proposal to the W3C for consideration, which may mean two new standards instead of one. Worse, we could end up with different people using any one of the four available technologies, removing the concept of an open, easy to use forms system for Internet users.
Microsoft has been against XForms since the beginning _ why support an open standard when you can push your own? It will be included in their next browser releases.
The industry _ that is, your company and mine _ just wants better forms processing that allows better communication and connectivity with the back end processes like the database system.
The last update was with the HTML 4.0 spec we saw in 1999, and in Internet terms that is a couple of generations old already. As far as the person filling out the form is concerned, they don't really care as long as their information is collected, their order processed or their bill paid.
For developers and those who have to do something with the information it does become an issue, especially if the user needs a special browser to access the system. If you are Amazon you don't want to have to tell people they can only order from Amazon if they have Brand X browser installed.
Any selection by W3C that requires the above restriction means that W3C has not done its job, which is to produce a standard for all web users and browser writers. At the same time, if Microsoft's browser will not support what W3C comes out with, then that will be a lot of people unable to access the new forms.
There are a lot of concerned glances in Microsoft's direction these days. There is real concern about Microsoft's grand vision for Windows Longhorn applications built in the XML-based XAML markup language using Longhorn's Avalon graphics system. Browsers like Mozilla Firefox, Opera and Apple's Safari will be useless to access these Internet-based Windows applications.
So we have a battle looming over how forms will be rendered and supported. It may mean losing an open standard provided under HTML now and it may mean everyone with a browser needing an upgrade or an add-in. Worse we could be locked into a fully proprietary model.
It does show that cracks exist in the web technology groups and that there are potential consequences for you and me in the near future. It also could show that we are facing a problem going forward with any type of open standards for Internet development.
People are already doing development work with XForms, a standard first proposed in 2000, but as usual the W3C was too slow and other technologies have grown up in the gap. Bottom line: how your forms development is going to be handled in a year's time will depend on how W3C tackles this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment