From: Adam 

Rich wrote:

>    I understand your question.  It is the mandate you have that I find
> humorous.  Don't you?
>

Umm no not in the slightest & what's more I find this somewhere between
shocking & indicative.

Ummmmmm we are trying to design for the long term. I accept that the future
is a foreign land for MS who appear to believe that next year is about how
far they can see.

We are putting in systems & practices which will take 3 or 4 years to
spread fully just within the NHS let alone your Fed gov, the Ozzies,
Canadians, Dutch, Finns, Germans, Koreans etc. & they're just the
people who have passed the "feasability study" phase.

So say the South Africans are interested but by the time they've done the
studies, done the prep work, passed the finance bills through their
legislature etc it will be maybe 6-8 years. Any political squalls along the
way & it may be 8-12 years.

Can you imagine MS even pretending to plan to have a tech which will be
"current" 8-12 years from now? People in Redmond would start
losing brain leaking though their ears at the prospect.

This is why MS simply can't grasp what's going on the gov IT arena e.g.
with health or Massachusetts.

I can open a book from 1890 & read it without much trouble. American
people can even read documents from the 1770'es & take them seriously.
Govs (& large health projects etc) need that kind on length of
"information persistence".

Wouldn't you find it humorous if your doctor told you that he'd just
upgraded his system & as such he couldn't read you medical history any
more?

How about if your gov said it couldn't read the laws etc written 20 years
ago because the "file format is no lnger supported"?


Adam


> Rich
>
>
>     "Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
>     
field.near the bridge">
>     wrote in message news:433cfea4{at}w3.nls.net...
>     Rich wrote:
>      >    I didn't question that value of requirements only this
>     specific one
>      > for which you stated that you are required to use a mechanism for
>     which
>      > the end user interface is not available or practically so, or so
>     you claim.
>      >
>
>     Arrrg Rich you really are a tit at times. I am asking a straightforward
>     question here regarding X-Forms.
>
>     I take it by your lack of an answer that you either have no idea
>     what MS
>     is up wrt W3C XForms support in IE or you do know & the answer is that
>     IE will not support XForms natively & thus we will have to recomend the
>     Novell IE plugin.
>
>     Otherwise you'd have provided a MS url.
>
>     Adam
>
>
>
>      > Rich
>      >
>      >
>      >     "Adam"
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
>     
>      >    
 field.near the
>     bridge">
>      >     wrote in message news:433c626d{at}w3.nls.net...
>      >     Rich wrote:
>      >      >    Do you really have a requirement that you must use
>     something for
>      >      > which implementations or practical implementations do not
>     exist?
>      >     Who
>      >      > sets these requirements for you?
>      >      >
>      >
>      >     Real requirement. & What is more it may well be that we will
>     be setting
>      >     the stds for "e-health" worldwide. With
Katrina youz guyz
>     discovered
>      >     that keeping medical records on paper in a hospital/surgery
>     basement is
>      >     not always a good thing.
>      >
>      >     WRT the requirements, the main one is that it has to be an
>     open std etc
>      >     such that some poor bloddy angolans or other 3'rd world
>     country don't
>      >     get stung (as well as that fact that we don't want to be).
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >      >    I did try the search you suggested and found
>      >      >
>     http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents/TSCv6.2_2005_7_14_final.pdf
>      >     which
>      >      > contains the statement
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >        1. • As with other applications e-Forms
have to comply
>      >     with XML,
>      >      >           but no specific e-Forms specifications are
>     mandated in
>      >     the e-GIF.
>      >      >
>      >
>      >
>      >     We have others. I will see if there is a public doc which
>     details this.
>      >
>      >     The nearest I can find is hedged in Sir Humphrey-speak
>      >
>      >
>     http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/faq/faq.asp?section=e%2DGIF&topic=55
>     http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/faq/faq.asp?section=e%2DGIF&topic=55>
>      >
>     http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/faq/faq.asp?section=e%2DGIF&topic=55
>    
>" target="new">http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/faq/faq.asp?section=e%2DGIF&topic=55>>
>      >
>      >     Q. What electronic forms products are e-GIF compliant?
>      >
>      >     F"orms that are e-GIF compliant must be able to exchange data
>     in XML or
>      >     export data into XML. The applicability of the XForms
>     specifications
>      >     (as
>      >     defined by W3C) to the e-GIF and other potential XML forms
>     solutions
>      >     are
>      >     under review by the e-Forms Working Group."
>      >
>      >     It needs to be seen in relation to other QA such as:
>      >
>      >     Q.  Is the e-GIF likely to specify open standards for distributed
>      >     computing?
>      >
>      >     The e-GIF specifies standards for Web services; it focuses on
>      >     technology
>      >     which is broadly consistent with standards used within the
>     Internet. As
>      >     a government wide service level architecture matures, further
>     standards
>      >     for web services and common application services will be
>     evaluated for
>      >     inclusion in future version of the e-GIF.
>      >
>      >     Note in the first Q&A "XForms specifications
(as defined by W3C)"
>      >
>      >     I will leave it at that. BTW The move to XML means a move to
>     open stds
>      >     in gov terms. The recent decision wrt OpenDocument over your
>     side o'the
>      >     pond is but one. In health terms wait & watch.
>      >
>      >
>      >     However just out of interest could you answer the question I
>     asked
>      >     originally?
>      >
>      >     When will MS be natively supporting XForms in IE or will it
>     be a choice
>      >     of Moz or  IE + plugin such as the Novell one?
>      >
>      >     Adam
>      >
>      >      >
>      >      > Rich
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >     "Adam"      
>      >     
>      >      >     >
wrote in message
>      >      >     news:433baaff$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>      >      >     Mostly a question for Rich S, but others can join in
>     (like I
>      >     can stop
>      >      >     you ).
>      >      >
>      >      >     We have a requirement that going forward most
of our forms
>      >     should be of
>      >      >     the XHTML+XFORM variety (google on UK gov
e-gif & xform).
>      >      >
>      >      >     Moz & others seem to be working towards
native support for
>      >     XForms but
>      >      >     all I can find wrt IE are some plugins which will
>     undoubtably
>      >     do the
>      >      >     job
>      >      >     but require downloadng etc.etc.
>      >      >
>      >      >     Equally OpenOffice2 has a quite good XForms
builder &
>     editor
>      >     & there is
>      >      >     a fairly neat thing from IBM for eclipse.
>      >      >
>      >      >     However can find zilch from MS. Any new wrt IE7 or
>     even your
>      >     MS dev
>      >      >     tools & XForms?
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >     Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5