X-Git-Url: https://vcs.fsf.org/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=ext%2Fafform%2Fdocs%2Fphilosophy.md;h=28768f32ab4ffe664a5bdfe6c4195f7c937b0522;hb=96879c169e7526004925e3eb6921ac03e7071985;hp=d6b074431c709b7fabee2758f0b41ce0f88b763d;hpb=b9e5de69f75a49960db081c9d688b38b8f40ba0d;p=civicrm-core.git

diff --git a/ext/afform/docs/philosophy.md b/ext/afform/docs/philosophy.md
index d6b074431c..28768f32ab 100644
--- a/ext/afform/docs/philosophy.md
+++ b/ext/afform/docs/philosophy.md
@@ -1,17 +1,16 @@
 # Philosophy, Beliefs, Assumptions
 
-Afform is generally grounded in a few beliefs..
+Afform is generally grounded in a few beliefs.
 
 ## Leap by extension
 
 Afform represents a major conceptual change in how core forms are developed.  It is incubated as an extension that can
-be enabled or disabled to taste.  The aim is for oother extension using `afform` can incrementally override/replace
-particular forms in core.
+be enabled or disabled to taste.  The aim is to write further extensions which (a) build on afform APIs in order to (b) incrementally override/replace particular forms in core.
 
 ## Features and user-experiences evolve in funny workflows
 
 If we could sit down and define one true, correct version of a "Donation" form, then our lives as Civi devlopers would
-be easy: draw a mockup, write code, ship, and retire.  But we can't -- because Civi users and integrators engage with
+be easy: draw a mockup, write code, ship, and retire.  But we can't -- because Civi users / integrators / developers engage with
 the system creatively.  They aim to optimize conversion-rates, to integrate with donor journerys, to question how each
 detail makes sense in their situation, etc.  That means switching between open-ended donation amounts, sliders, radios,
 etc; revising the language and layout; maybe adding an informational question or newsletter opt-in.
@@ -26,6 +25,9 @@ This is *not* an argument for maximal customization or maximal decentralization.
 must still communicate and exercise judgment about the best way to approach each problem.  But there are legitimate
 instances for each workflow; given that each will be sought, we want them to be safe and somewhat consistent.
 
+The aims are *not* achieved by developing every feature in-house. Rather, this is conceived as an effort to use
+existing tools/frameworks while relaxing workflows.
+
 What distinguishes `afform` from the original form architecture (Civi's combination of HTML_Quickform, Smarty and
 Profiles)?  Each of those workflows has been given some consideration upfront with the aim of providing a *consistent,
 unified model* -- so that the same data-structure can be pushed through any of those common workflows.