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

Re: Last call comment about readonly property with calculate (PR#45)

From: David Landwehr <david.landwehr@picoforms.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:29:51 +0200
Message-Id: <C1259374-16C6-416C-8325-7446F4F126A2@picoforms.com>
Cc: public-forms@w3.org
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
I have accepted the resolution, please don't reopen!

I apologize for my very blunt statement about ignorance, it was  
uncalled for.

Best regards,
David


On Jun 19, 2007, at 9:05 PM, John Boyer wrote:

>
> Hi David,
>
> Although it was appropriate for your response to go to www-forms- 
> editor, note that I have moved the discussion to public-forms as  
> that is appropriate for further discussion of the issues.
>
> I agree that I do not know of the specific optimization you have in  
> mind, but I don't recall that you have ever explained the  
> optimization so that it can be assessed by the group.  This makes  
> it difficult to make an exception to the previously defined behavior.
>
> We have a very useful use case articulated and even added it to the  
> spec to resolve the non-clarity aspect of your feedback.  To adopt  
> the specific technical solution you wanted would require  
> eliminating that use case, but in favor of an unspecified  
> optimization.
>
> Despite not knowing the specifics of your optimization, I do not  
> believe that my statement that "I don't think you can do that kind  
> of isolation" is borne of ignorance.
>
> You cannot see it from the machine-formatted minutes, but if you  
> look at the underlying IRC minutes (http://www.w3.org/2007/06/13- 
> forms-irc), you will see that we spent 1.5 hours on this one issue,  
> which was a very large amount of time on this one issue, especially  
> considering that we were facing on the order of 150 last call  
> issues to discuss.  Considering that we made it through about half  
> during the three days, it should be clear that your issue received  
> many times the average amount of consideration.  The minutes do not  
> reflect the amount of effort that the working group devoted to your  
> issue because it was a lengthy discussion about many complex  
> aspects of the existing specification.
>
> More specifically, my own claim that "I don't think you can do that  
> kind of isolation" is based on the fact that I think can create  
> legal XForms that will break your optimization without setting a  
> calculated node to readonly false (if setting a calculated node to  
> readonly false breaks your optimization).  This is based on the  
> fact that the setvalue action can change a node marked as  
> readonly.  Readonly is a property that is communicated to the UI  
> via *notification* events.  Just as non-relevance does not make  
> data nodes unavailable to XForms actions, readonly does not make  
> them immutable via XForms actions.  Hence, I can use setvalue at  
> will to manipulate a readonly calculated node just as if it were  
> not readonly and manipulated by a UI binding.  Put another way, the  
> readonly is information that affects the state of form controls  
> only, which is in principle unrelated to the formation of  
> computational dependency graphs and subgraphs and in practice  
> unrelated due to the existence of the XForms setvalue action.
>
> In conclusion, it would help to know more about your specific  
> optimization since there *may* be some other way to accommodate it  
> or something like it.  Either way, I hope you will understand from  
> this email that the whole working group does take your feedback  
> very seriously as you are an esteemed member of this working group  
> even if this particular issue did not turn out according to your  
> expressed preference.
>
> Sincerely yours,
> 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
>
>
>
>
> David Landwehr <david.landwehr@picoforms.com>
> Sent by: www-forms-editor-request@w3.org
> 06/13/2007 11:31 PM
>
> To
> John Boyer <xforms-issues@mn.aptest.com>
> cc
> www-forms-editor@w3.org
> Subject
> Re: Last call comment about readonly property with calculate (PR#45)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have read through the minutes and it seems you don't even  
> consider my
> request. The statement by John "I don't think you can do that kind of
> isolation." clearly displays the ignorance from which the  
> decissions are
> made in the working group.
>
> I accept the resolution simply because I give up.
> /David
>
> John Boyer skrev:
> > We agree it was unclear, but we find that calculate merely  
> defaults readonly to
> > true, and that it can be set to false, and that there are use  
> cases, namely
> > default value. We tested the use case and found it works. We  
> changed the note in
> > 4.3.6 [ http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index- 
> diff.html#evt-recalculate]
> > and put an example in MIP for readonly [
> > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index- 
> diff.html#model-prop-readOnly]
> >
> > Please let us know if this resolution is acceptable.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > The Forms Working Group
> >
> >
> >> Having the following:
> >> <xf:model>
> >>   <xf:instance>
> >>     <data xmlns="">value</data>
> >>   </xf:instance>
> >>   <xf:bind nodeset="." readonly="false()" calculate="1"/>
> >> </xf:model>
> >>
> >> It is not spelled out in the specification that it is possible to
> >> override the default state when it has a calculate on it. The  
> default
> >> value is true() when the node has a calculate on it. On the  
> other side
> >> it is not specified that it is not allowed. I think it should  
> not be
> >> allowed since it is not clear when the value will be recalculated
> >> because a node cannot take itself as dependent. E.g. an insert  
> or delete
> >> will recalculate the value even if the user has updated the  
> value (this
> >> must also happen if an insert happens in another instance). This  
> could
> >> be a problem for implementation which isolates the creating of
> >> dependencies between instances.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> David
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 20:30:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:43 UTC