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

Re: 15 Insert/Delete Examples updated in Editor's draft

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 21:53:42 -0800
To: ebruchez@orbeon.com
Cc: public-forms@w3.org, public-forms-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF338BFD3B.5DEBEB0B-ON8825738B.001FBA6C-8825738B.00208D57@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Erik,

It was needed today, so I completed the task.  It is now approaching 1am, 
so I will talk to you in the morning about it if needed.

For the record, we did not re-add the text in a different place.
We did put aspects of the former text back *because* we lost important use 
cases without them, such as the ability to insert attributes.

Please note that the amended text *must* still be predicated on the type 
of cloned node and/or the type of insert location node.  It will be 
obvious once you review the text that this is both unavoidable and quite 
natural. For example, if the context attribute is used to specify the 
parent of the cloned node, one must still decide whether to add the cloned 
node to the attribute list or child list based on whether or not the 
cloned node is an attribute. 

Anyway, the result of your request (context for parent container, nodeset 
for sibling) has made insert easier to understand, which was the goal.
We hope to discuss transition to CR in the morning, so please review by 
then.

Thank you,
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: public-forms-request@w3.org
11/05/2007 09:54 AM
Please respond to
ebruchez@orbeon.com


To
public-forms@w3.org
cc
"Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>
Subject
Re: 15 Insert/Delete Examples updated in Editor's draft







John,

 > Notwithstanding whether the intent of your proposal was misunderstood,
 > the thing you proposed (the removal of certain text) did occur.

My initial comment proposed the removal of that text with a certain
intent, which was clearly explained (and re-explained in this thread).

If then the content of that removed text is re-added but in a
different place, then the removal obviously does nothing to achieve
that intent.

 > Can you reformulate what you want to happen based on the latest copy of
 > the spec?
 > This will be needed for comparison.

I will attempt to do this today.

-Erik

-- 
Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
http://www.orbeon.com/
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 05:56:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:46 UTC