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

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

From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:25:09 -0800
Message-ID: <4732B9D5.9000304@orbeon.com>
To: public-forms@w3.org

John,

Thanks! I wish I could have been in Boston this week. (I will be there 
for the XML evening in a month though.)

-Erik

John Boyer wrote:
> 
> Thanks Erik.  I took it the right way.
> Thanks also for being very responsive during the face to face time to 
> reading and considering these final changes we were making to the CR spec.
> 
> Yes agreed that the particular wording does allow insertion of PIs and 
> comments into the root node.  Because the result of an xpath could be 
> the root node, the choice was to make it an error or make it work. 
>  Since it could work in a manner consistent with everything else, making 
> an error seemed to be an unnecessary limitation.
> 
> I do like it better now; you were right that it really does make things 
> simpler, which we need for insert, so I am glad you insisted.
> 
> :-)
> 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 10:45 PM
> Please respond to
> ebruchez@orbeon.com
> 
> 
> 	
> To
> 	public-forms@w3.org
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	Re: 15 Insert/Delete Examples updated in Editor's draft
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> Wow, you are a real "bourreau de travail" (in a good way ;-).
> 
> I like the more explicit approach used in point 7a of section
> 10.3. One question about the following:
> 
>   "If the insert location node is the root node of an instance (which
>    is the parent of the root element), and the cloned node is not an
>    element, then the target location is before the first child of the
>    insert location node."
> 
> I assume this is intended to allow inserting PIs and comments as
> children of a document node, right? I believe that this case was not
> explicitly considered before, but I think it is good to allow this.
> 
> I also like the fact that 10.3.7d and B4 now makes it clearer that we
> are not considering attributes as an ordered list, and the rationale
> given is very good too.
> 
> So it seems that if I read 10.3 and B4 well, everything is now as I
> expected it to be wrt xforms:insert :-) Yay!
> 
> -Erik
> 
> John Boyer wrote:
>  >
>  > 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/
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
> http://www.orbeon.com/
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
http://www.orbeon.com/
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2007 07:25:30 UTC

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