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

Re: Why is it hard to remove unwanted top-level elements from XForms schema?

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:27:07 +0100
Message-ID: <a707f8300710251527k3b2d423ci3c2558bd093fcf55@mail.gmail.com>
To: "John Boyer" <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: "new Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org>

Hi John,

> First question: Can anyone see a problem with the approach I used?

One of the major problems with both the XForms schemas, and the XHTML
Modularisation schemas, is their over-reliance on types. It seems that
schema designers invariably try to take an OO approach to schemas and
it doesn't usually work. :) Your approach of defining two different
elements is the right one; I would go further though, and say that you
don't need to create a type for it, because it's just one more thing
to maintain.

But...


> Second question:  If not, then why is it more than an hour or so of work to
> remove unwanted elements from the top level?
>
> Granted it's not critical path to CR, but if it's this easy then when we get
> done with the LC issues, we may as well just get this done.


I thought we went through all of this a few weeks ago!

I have schemas in which I have done all of this...and more! I also did
this for the XHTML Modularisation schemas, too, and my XForms schemas
work with XHTML Modularisation, which means that XForms could be used
with any language that has been created using M12N. (That's quite
important, I believe.)

Also, I broke the schemas down into many smaller modules, such as
actions and submission, and then re-combined them to create both
XForms 1.0 and XForms 1.1, the latter as a set of extensions to the
former.

And the schemas also work with SVG and MathML. :)

In short, there's a lot more than a few hours work involved in getting
the schemas right.

We agreed on this list a few weeks ago to 'patch up' the current
schemas for LC, for two reasons; the first was that I haven't had the
time to finish the new schemas, since I've been too busy with RDFa,
and second, that you were concerned about making large changes that
might disrupt deployed tools. I don't see any reason not to continue
with this plan, and to find some time to bring my schemas up-to-date.

(For me the most important consideration is that with these schemas we
get XHTML Modularisation.)

What do you think?

Regards,

Mark

-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 22:27:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:45 UTC