Re: Response to action item about xsi:type processing in the absence of a schema

Done, thanks.

John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com> 
Sent by: www-forms-editor-request@w3.org
07/17/2007 09:26 AM
Please respond to
ebruchez@orbeon.com


To
"Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org>
cc
www-forms-editor@w3.org
Subject
Response to action item about xsi:type processing in the absence  of a 
schema







All,

This email is in response to the following action item assigned to me:

   Erik to recommend where the spec should be clarified about xsi:type 
handling
   http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-forms-minutes.html#action02

As a reminder of the issue at hand:

* This came up when the following comment was being considered:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0076.html

* The WG seemed to agree that even in the absence of an imported
   schema, xsi:type attribute on instance data should be processed.

* However, the spec does not clearly state that this must happen. So
   we want to add a clarification.

* My task is to identify the best location in the spec to clarify
   this.

I think that the best place is "4.3.5 The xforms-revalidate Event",
which already mentions xsi:type processing. We should add a note in
that section. I suggest the following wording:

   "NOTE: xsi:type attributes on instance data elements are processed
    even in the absence of external or inline schema."

There is already a note in this section. I suggest placing this new
note right before the existing note.

Note that this does not address the issue of allowing the use case of
loading an instance containing xsi:type attributes without triggering
schema processing. This is a separate issue, that may be covered by
the following email:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0097.html

This should satisfy this action item. The next step is for the WG to
accept this change and introduce it in the spec.

-Erik

-- 
Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
http://www.orbeon.com/