W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > June 2008

Re: Advisory: Changed definition of validity to include "non-empty if required"

From: Kenneth Sklander <kenneth@picoforms.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:20:08 +0200
Cc: mark.seaborne@picoforms.com, kenneth.sklander@picoforms.com, public-forms <public-forms@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7C27A5D5-00BF-4039-BC2E-438CED17601B@picoforms.com>
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Hi John,

To keep backwards-compatibility that particular feature of our  
implementations was not changed when the xforms 2nd edition changed  
the behavior of when a node is valid. We do not require a xforms 1.0  
4th edition.

best,
kenneth

On 05/06/2008, at 02.10, John Boyer wrote:

>
> Hi Mark,
>
> The working group recently decided to rescind an earlier decision in  
> XForms 1.0 to remove "required but empty" from the list of  
> conditions that produce an invalid result (and hence an xforms- 
> invalid).
>
> The latest editor's draft of XForms 1.1 linked from the WG web page  
> contains changes to the definition of validity in Section 4 (xforms- 
> revalidate event) to reflect this decision.
>
> This removed an inconsistency between the notion of validity used in  
> the UI versus the one used in submission.
>
> The prior decision to exclude "required but empty" from invalidity  
> was to avoid an unpleasant user experience on form startup for those  
> who style invalidity in a particular way and those who write  
> handlers for xforms-invalid.
>
> However, for those few who do hook xforms-invalid to show a message,  
> the fact is that the processing model does not support dispatching  
> xforms-invalid on start up anyway.  Furthermore, the working  
> groupnow believes the styling concern was based on interpreting  
> informative information about styling in Appendix G as if it were  
> normative and complete.
>
> For the sake of being "more informative" the working group resolved  
> to add extra CSS pseudo-classes to the list suggested to  
> implementers so that authors can style required-but-empty controls  
> differently than those that are invalid for other reasons.
>
> The working group also resolved that I should write you this email  
> to inform you of the change because the changes are only being  
> reflected in the 1.1 spec.  Most of the working group feels that 1.1  
> is pretty much it going forward, and so the working group prefers to  
> avoid doing extra work to create a further edition of XForms 1.0 to  
> reflect this change there as well.  However, the working group is  
> aware that Picoforms in particular is focused on 1.0 development and  
> would therefore like to provide this advisory about the behavior  
> change to the definition of validity and its effects on styling and  
> on the xforms-invalid event.  Please let us know if you require a  
> 1.0 spec revision and test suite update for this advisory.
>
> Best regards,
> John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
> Senior Technical Staff Member
> 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
> Blog RSS feed: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
>
>
> ----- Forwarded by John Boyer/CanWest/IBM on 06/04/2008 04:49 PM -----
> From:	"Leigh L. Klotz, Jr." <Leigh.Klotz@Xerox.com>
> To:	public-forms@w3.org
> Date:	05/28/2008 11:39 AM
> Subject:	value-empty is not enough
>
>
>
>
>
> In [1] John and I took on the action to propose a :value-empty CSS
> pseudo-class.
>
> In reviewing the editor's draft, section G.1 "Pseudo Classes" [2],  
> I've
> been reminded that CSS pseudo-classes are by convention tri-state, so
> for each pseudo-class there should its negation defined as well.   All
> existing Pseudo-classes in G.1 are defined in pairs.  The reason for  
> the
> tri-state is that the middle is not excluded; for example, host  
> language
> elements not bound to instance nodes would be neither empty nor non- 
> empty.
>
> Therefore, I propose that we define :value-empty as a pair, and
> tentatively that we use :value-empty and :value-non-empty.
> (There is precedent for the use of hyphenated words; for example,
> :out-of-range and :read-write.)
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008May/att-0054/2008-05-21.html#ACTION3
> [2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-all.html#N89852
>
> Leigh.
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 16:34:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:48 UTC