Re: Argumentation needed - IHE intends to drop XForms in favor of HTML5

Hi Oskari,

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:50 PM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not an author of the spec, but here's my take:
>
> XHTML is fine as a recommendation for what web-based systems should outpu=
t. It is problematic, however, as a source format for form interchange:
>
> - Due to reliance on scripting, a form authored in one tool cannot be und=
erstood by another tool except on the most basic level (on the other hand, =
I have no experience of compatibility between XForms tools)
> - Due to the complexity of the spec, a fully compatible form player canno=
t be implemented in embedded systems less capable than current smartphones,=
 whereas XForms minimum requirements are an order of magnitude smaller (e.g=
. Java-based dumbphone implementations exist, and native implementations co=
uld be used on even less capable devices)
>
> Additionally, if IHE is really going to specify HTML5 as the requirement =
(rather than just XHTML), one has to question the choice to standardize on =
a spec that is not finished yet (might reach candidate recommendation statu=
s next year, might not), and for which there are no even close to complete =
implementations, even for the forms part (see implementation status notes i=
n left margin at http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#forms).

Completely agree.

>
> That being said, would it be feasible for your client to use XForms only =
internally and transcode the XForms into XHTML for interoperability purpose=
s (possibly by using EMC Documentum XForms or XSLTForms)?

The fight is not lost yet - our customer uses betterFORM in their
product but he has good hope that the standards people of IHE are
still open to discussion and arguments. I'll post the results of that
here as soon as i know more.

So for now it's too early to give up on that and it also would be at
least some effort to port the current solution to an alternative
product. Though we have a standard here - lets face it - complete
interoperability between products is still a challenge.

Thanks,

Joern
>
> BR,
> =A0 =A0 --Oskari
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behal=
f Of ext Joern Turner
> Sent: 30 May, 2011 16:56
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Argumentation needed - IHE intends to drop XForms in favor of HT=
ML5
>
> Sorry - i missed to give my previous mail a meaningful subject
>
> I repeat my message here hoping the WG will respond to that.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------
> i received a call for help from a client being in eHealth: the IHE (Integ=
rating the Healthcare Enterprise) - http://www.ihe.net/ =A0which develops s=
tandards in healthcare is about to remove XForms from their technical frame=
work recommendations. This is the original text i
> received:
>
> "With the use of XHTML forms, and with HTML 5 the replaising XHTML 2.0 (w=
hich was supposed to incorporate XForms, thus providing wide support for th=
e technology) =A0as the next version of HTML, there are practically no impl=
ementations of XForms. Leaving XHTML forms as the only option will signiffi=
cantly improve interoperability."
>
> I would be happy if the Working Group would step in and help to argue aga=
inst this as this means that XForms =A0must not be used any more in IHE-rel=
ated projects. This is a real catastrophe for the client and he asked for a=
ll the help possible to influence the IHE. I already tried to write somethi=
ng down but i feel that it would be helpful to get a statement from the aut=
hors of the spec.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joern Turner
>
>