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

Re: Post Postscript, Re: ACTION NEEDED (Charlie, Nick, Leigh): XForms 1.1 schema update

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:45:31 -0700
To: "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
Cc: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>, mark.birbeck@x-port.net, Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com, "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>, public-forms-request@w3.org, "Charles F Wiecha" <wiecha@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OF1A553594.885D6EB1-ON88257362.00713FE4-88257362.00720D1B@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Mark and Leigh,

I agree with Mark on all points. 

For my #2 (put header declaration inside of submission), I merely thought 
there was no point in worsening the problem.

In general, I don't want to preclude having us switch to a better schema 
in the future, e.g. the modularized ones that MarkB has been working on. I 
just didn't want that to be an obstacle to getting to CR.  We had a last 
call comment about the fact that the (informatively referenced) schema did 
not contain much if any correct XForms 1.1 content.  It seemed prudent to 
do the hours-long task of fixing that using a schema that is tried, tested 
and true (warts and all), and then get the modularized version to be 
available where people could test drive it with their tools before making 
it the more official, if not normative, version.

But, again to Leigh's question, no radical surgery is needed on stuff that 
wasn't actually added for 1.1.

As to whether Charlie or Nick addresses those few review points I raised, 
well... whoever gets there first!

Cheers,
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





"Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com> 
Sent by: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
09/26/2007 10:48 AM

To
"Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
cc
Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com, "Charles F Wiecha" 
<wiecha@us.ibm.com>, John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, "Forms WG (new)" 
<public-forms@w3.org>, public-forms-request@w3.org
Subject
Re: Post Postscript, Re: ACTION NEEDED (Charlie, Nick, Leigh): XForms 1.1 
schema update






Hi Leigh,

One of the main reasons I started changing the schemas, many moons
ago, was to address exactly this problem. As you know, in the course
of that I also looked at making them work with XHTML M12N (which
involved changes to XHTML M12N itself, and those changes have been
incorporated into the specification).

So the work to make XForms an XHTML M12N module is largely complete,
so the suggestion I made the other day was that it is probably best to
do the bare minimum on the current schemas in order to get everything
to last call. Of course, people are welcome to try to do more than
that with the current schemas -- it's none of my business :) -- but I
can say for certain that it will involve quite a lot of work.

Regards,

Mark

On 26/09/2007, Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com> wrote:
>
> Are we planning to leave in the botch that everything is defined as a
> toplevel element?
> I.e. label/help/hint/alert/choices etc. (and even submission, instance)
> are all available for the host language to be incorporated anywhere?
> At one point we had a request to fix this by making them work only
> inside their correct spots, then someone pointed out that that's why we
> can do label inside group. What was decided for the modularized schemas
> that we're postponing? Do they define all these child elements at
> toplevel or do they inhibit their use by the host language?
>
> Leigh.
>
>


-- 
  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 Wednesday, 26 September 2007 20:46:02 UTC

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