W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Action for all: Review proposed resolution notes on these LC issues

From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:29:27 +0200
Message-ID: <469E15B7.909@orbeon.com>
To: public-forms@w3.org

John & all,

My comments on those below:

 > Group 1

The LC comment does not particularly recommend which alternative to
drop. I disagree with the note which seems to recommend keeping only
the lowercase alternative.

The Secure Hash Standard which we refer to specifically uses the terms
"SHA-1", "SHA-256", "SHA-384", and "SHA-512". Similarly, the MD5
specification which we refer to uses "MD5". I think we should keep
those exact names as defined in the specification, unless there is a
good reason not to.

 > Group 2

I think it is reasonable to switch the examples.


Although I am reluctant to introducing more functions when XPath 2.0
already did all the work, I agree that explaining how choose() relates
to if() is needed.

 > Group 3

I agree with the note. XPath 2.0 seems to establish a good
precedent. We could be more succinct and avoid detailing the MVC
approach in the abstract, but I do not think that it hurts. It is
certainly more telling and more correct than the XForms 1.0 abstract.


I agree with the notes.


I agree with the notes.


Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 13:29:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:52 UTC