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

Re: XForms WG comments on SMIL 3.0 LCWD

From: Charles F Wiecha <wiecha@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:35:40 -0500
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: public-forms@w3.org, www-smil@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA3F1BF7D.3CA77856-ON85257393.004FFC00-85257393.00502B77@us.ibm.com>

Thierry -- for the Forms WG, this is to acknowledge that we accept the
resolution of all of our comments on the SMIL 3.0 LC working draft, as
discussed during our joint F2F last week.

Thanks, Charlie Wiecha



                                                                                  
                                                                                  
                                                                                  
         Re: XForms WG comments on SMIL 3.0 LCWD                                  
                                                                                  
                                                                                  
         Thierry Michel                                                           
                      to:                                                         
                        Charles F Wiecha                                          
                                                                                1 
                                                                                1 
                                                                                / 
                                                                                1 
                                                                                3 
                                                                                / 
                                                                                0 
                                                                                7 
                                                                                0 
                                                                                9 
                                                                                : 
                                                                                0 
                                                                                2 
                                                                                A 
                                                                                M 
                                                                                  
                                                                                  
                                                                                  
                                                                                  
         Cc:                                                                      
            public-forms, www-smil                                                
                                                                                  
                                                                                  
                                                                                  
                                                                                  






Charles,


Following our joint F2F XForms and SYMM WG, I beleive we have resolved
all issues.
Could you please reply that you agree with all the SYMM WG responses to
your SMIL 3.0 LC comments

# LC-1844 XForms-8, Charles F Wiecha , 15. SMIL 3.0 State, question,
# LC-1845 XForms-9, Charles F Wiecha , 15. SMIL 3.0 State, question,
# LC-1847 XForms-11, Charles F Wiecha , 15. SMIL 3.0 State, question,
# LC-1851 XForms-15, Charles F Wiecha , 15. SMIL 3.0 State, question,
# LC-1837 XForms -1, Charles F Wiecha , 15. SMIL 3.0 State, general
# LC-1840 XForms-4, Charles F Wiecha , 15. SMIL 3.0 State, substantive,
# LC-1841 XForms-5, Charles F Wiecha , 15. SMIL 3.0 State, substantive,
# LC-1848 XForms-12, Charles F Wiecha , 15. SMIL 3.0 State, substantive,
# LC-1849 XForms-13, Charles F Wiecha , 15. SMIL 3.0 State, substantive,
# LC-1850 XForms-14, Charles F Wiecha , 15. SMIL 3.0 State, substantive,
# LC-1838 XForms-2, Charles F Wiecha , 15. SMIL 3.0 State, editorial,
# LC-1839 XForms-3, Charles F Wiecha , 15. SMIL 3.0 State, editorial,
# LC-1842 XForms-6, Charles F Wiecha , 15. SMIL 3.0 State, editorial,
# LC-1843 XForms-7, Charles F Wiecha , 15. SMIL 3.0 State, editorial,
# LC-1846 XForms-10, Charles F Wiecha , 15. SMIL 3.0 State, editorial,


Thank you.


  F Wiecha wrote:
> For the Forms WG, thank you for your response to our earlier comments on
> the SMIL 3.0 LCWD.  As background for our F2F meeting later today, here
are
> the remaining questions which we would like to discuss.  Thanks, Charlie
> Wiecha
>
> =====
>
> Your comment on 15. SMIL 3.0 State:
>> 8. Additional event required for data model deletion?
>>
>> If delete is in fact supported as mentioned above, will another event
>> be
>> required to notify authors on deletion?  If so what notation will be
>> used
>> to refer to the deleted node since it no longer exists?
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-1844):
> For SMIL 3.0 we decided not to add a notification for the deletion of
> nodes, for reasons of simplicity. If applications require this
> functionality they can always incorporate the full XForms data model
> through an xml namespace.
>
> Forms comments: how would authors receive notification if nodes are
> deleted?  Given the case where there is no full XForms data model, nodes
> can still be deleted without any notification.  However, nodes when
> inserted generate events, it is not clear to us why there is not parallel
> function for the delete case.
>
> The SYMM group has decided to add delete action, but not the
corresponding
> event.  So, for example, why are events supported on inserting?  It seems
> that they're either important/useful or not to the author.
>
> In XForms, for example, index management in the repeat module is now in
> terms of listening for insert/delete events.  Both are required... we're
> not sure SMIL has equivalent constructs to repeat, but for us we need
both
> to properly manage anything operating over the data model.
>
> ----
>
> Your comment on 15. SMIL 3.0 State:
>> 4. Missing delete action?
>>
>> We note the use of newvalue to create a new entry in the data
>> model...is
>> delete also supported?  Once created, are data model entries able to
>> be
>> deleted by other means?
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-1840):
> Omitting delete was an oversight. We will add it.
>
> No further Forms comments.
>
> ----
>
> Your comment on 15. SMIL 3.0 State:
>> 5. How is the position for new data model entries determined?
>>
>> The "ref" attribute is used to specify the position of new entries in
>> the
>> data model, as described in Section 15.6.3: "Therefore, name is used
>> to
>> give the name for the new item and ref specifies where it is
>> inserted."
>> Where is the new entry created relative to the entry given in "ref" --
>> as a
>> child element, and if so where in the possibly existing set of
>> children.
>> If as a sibling, before or after the ref'd item?
>>
>> Does the SMIL 3.0 data model have the notion of order as in XML or
>> not,
>> perhaps depending again on the language profile used (some
>> environments
>> such as ECMAScript or Servlet attributes may not support the notion of
>> document order)?
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-1841):
> We will add an attribute to allow specifying the position of the new
> element.
>
> No further Forms comments.
>
> ----
>
> Your comment on 15. SMIL 3.0 State:
>> 13. Support for replace=instance on submission
>>
>> It appears that only a single state element is allowed in SMIL 3.0.
>> If
>> this is the case, is replace=instance also supported on submission?  If
>> so,
>> then only the single, original "instance" in the state element could
>> be
>> targeted -- making some use cases difficult.  A common use case is to
>> query
>> for data that is dependent on some values first obtained from the user
>> (for
>> example a US state) then to return the list of valid city names in
>> that
>> state in a second instance.  Lacking support for multiple state
>> elements
>> this pattern would be difficult.  XForms 1.1 does allow targeting
>> subtrees
>> of an instance hence the author could partition the single data model
>> to
>> support this pattern by convention, albeit with more difficulty than
>> if
>> multiple state elements are supported.
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-1849):
> We have picked up the target attribute from XForms 1.1 submission.
>
> No further Forms comments.
>
> ----
>
> Your comment on 15. SMIL 3.0 State:
>> 3. Are attributes supported in the SMIL 3.0 data model?
>>
>> We don't see examples where attributes are used or supported in the
>> SMIL
>> 3.0 data model -- for example in the setvalue action.  Please clarify
>> whether SMIL 3.0 supports only elements or attributes as well.  If
>> attributes are supported, will a setvalue that references a
>> non-existent
>> attribute also create that attribute as it does in XForms?
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-1839):
> The examples were picked to be as simple as possible, as to be easily
> translated to other data model languages than XPath. That said, the
> expressions and lvalues allowed are completely governed by that language,
> so setting attributes with XPath is definitely allowed, as is, for
> example, accessing complex datastructures if Python is used as the data
> model language. We will add an informative note to that effect.
>
> No further Forms comments.
>
> ----
>
> Your comment on 15. SMIL 3.0 State:
>> 6. Section 15.6.5 additional data model examples would be quite useful.
>>
>> Additional examples in this section could be provided to clarify some
>> of
>> the questions raised above -- e.g. the support for attributes, insert
>> position, whether delete is supported etc.
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-1842):
> We will add some more examples.
>
> No further Forms comments.
>
> ----
>
> Your comment on 15. SMIL 3.0 State:
>> 7. In Section 15.6.6 do we assume XML/DOM event processing?
>>
>> It is not clear whether the events listed, stateChange and
>> contentControlChange, follow DOM/XML event processing including
>> bubble/capture processing etc.
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-1843):
> The section has been updated to state that no these events don't bubble.
A
> similar change has been made to the normative section in the SMIL
Language
> Profile.
>
> Forms comments: We see there is no bubble phase, but do they have a
capture
> phase? Could you please clarify if SMIL is using is this some level of
DOM
> eventing or another processing model?
>
> ----
>
> Your comment on 15. SMIL 3.0 State:
>> 9. Multiple contentControlChange events dispatched?
>>
>> There are two signatures for the contentControlChange event, one that
>> fires
>> on any change and the other that indicates a specific change.  Will
>> application authors in general receive both events for each change?
>>
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-1845):
> Yes, both events fire. We have clarified this both the the referenced
> (non-normative) section and in the normative text in the SMIL Language
> Profile.
>
> Forms comments: we remain concerned about the approach of firing both
> contentControlChange events, could you please clarify the need for doing
> this?  Question which arise include: which comes first?  Is there the
> potential for the 2nd event to be invalidated by some aspect of handling
> the first?  For example, we've had similar problems where as you're
firing
> events want to fire two that are related to the same activity: what
happens
> if you dispatch first one, its action handler makes 2nd event stale...no
> longer relevant?  Does this case perhaps not apply to SMIL?
>
> ----
>
> Your comment on 15. SMIL 3.0 State:
>> 10.  Section 15.6.6 namespace terminology
>>
>> The phrase "Rationale: Raising the stateChange event on the state
>> element
>> instead of on the data model element itself allows for external data
>> models
>> (which have a distinct xmlid namespace) and on non-XML data models
>> (depending on the expression language)." refers to distinct xmlid
>> *namespaces* when probably what is meant are distinct xmlid *spaces*.
>> Seems not to be a namespace issue rather one of allowing for distinct
>> XML
>> documents each of which would have its own space for IDs.
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-1846):
> We will change the paragraph as suggested.
>
> No further Forms comments.
>
> ----
>
> Your comment on 15. SMIL 3.0 State:
>> 15. Synchronous or asynchronous submission?
>>
>> Is submission synchronous in SMIL 3.0 as in XForms 1.0?  If so, what is
>> the
>> behavior of the main timing control cycle during submission -- is there
>> the
>> potential for blocking user or other interaction/presentation
>> unacceptably
>> while waiting for a response to a submission?  What is the behavior of
>> submission notification events relative to the execution of normal
>> SMIL
>> timing behavior, e.g. are submission events queued for execution and if
>> so
>> with what relationship to other SMIL processing?
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-1851):
> Submission is synchronous, as in XForms 1.0. Because SMIL has its own
> timing model this does not present the same problems as in HTML: by
> placing the <submit> in a <par> right
> at the root of the document an author can get fully asynchronous
> behaviour. Think of this as similar to starting an extra thread in a
> normal programming language.
>
> In addition, by selecting a different location for the <submit> an author
> can also get fork/join behaviour. We feel this obviates the need for
> submission notification events. We will add an example of this usage
> pattern.
>
> Forms comments: doesn't SMIL have a particular need for async submission
> given the need to maintain responsiveness to the user in the midst of a
> timed multimedia interaction?  Would the fork/join case handles this
> scenario?
>
> Further, does submission in SMIL allow for pre and post processing of
> submission perhaps via an appropriate set of submission related events?
>
> Finally, is there a need for control over submission serialization or is
> this future requirement?  Would this perhaps be accomplished by adopting
> more of xforms submission in the future?
>
>
> ----
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 14:36:19 UTC

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