Re: Draft minutes for 2008-10-15 F2F Virtual Day, Second Half

The other minor issue is that we want to specify this in a way that can 
also be used with XPath 1.0.

John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications
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





From:
Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com
To:
"Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Cc:
"Leigh L. Klotz, Jr." <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>, public-forms@w3.org, 
public-forms-request@w3.org
Date:
10/16/2008 06:11 AM
Subject:
Re: Draft minutes for 2008-10-15 F2F Virtual Day, Second Half




Hi Mark,

There is one minor issue with overriding the default function namepsace. 
If I'm correct when you change this you will need to namespace prefix the 
standard xpath 2.0 function (e.g. fn:node-name) and almost nobody does 
that everybody writes the standard XPath 2.0 functions without a prefix.

Regards,

Nick Van den Bleeken  -  Research & Development Manager
Inventive Designers
Phone: +32 - 3 - 8210170
Fax: +32 - 3 - 8210171
Email: Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com

public-forms-request@w3.org wrote on 10/16/2008 01:05:55 PM:

> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> On 10/15/08, Leigh L. Klotz, Jr. <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com> wrote:
> > Draft minutes for  2008-10-15 F2F Virtual Day, Second Half.
> > First half of day is in IRC minutes, whose URL is included in 
thisdocument.
> 
> Wow...very impressive minutes, Leigh.
> 
> And it sounds like it was an interesting day.
> 
> One minor comment on the XPath function discussion; the evaluation
> context for XPath 2.0 includes a default function namespace, which is
> applied to functions that do not have a prefix. If we define this to
> be the XForms namespace, then by default authors can use XForms
> functions unprefixed. We should also provide a way for the author to
> override this.
> 
> So, when defining the functions themselves in a specification, all
> that would need to happen is to ensure that they are defined *with*
> prefixes. It doesn't matter whether they are defined across one or ten
> specifications, as long as the prefix is always the same, they would
> be available to an XForms author for use *unprefixed*. In other words,
> we don't need to say anything about 'importing modules', etc., since
> that is all part of XPath.
> 
> For example, in some spec we might say that there is a new function,like 
this:
> 
>   xf:new-func($a as xs:integer, $b as xs:boolean) as xs:integer
> 
> This indicates that there is a function 'new-func', and that it is
> identified by the URI:
> 
>   <http://www.w3.org/2002/xforms#new-func>
> 
> That gives us a unique identifier for our function, and regardless of
> the context it is used in, we will always know what function we are
> talking about.
> 
> How that function is coded up in mark-up will depend on the in-scope
> default function namespace at the time the function is called. In an
> XForms document with the 'default default', so to speak, an author can
> use the function like this:
> 
>   @value="a + new-func( b )"
> 
> I.e., they would not need to use the explicit prefix. Of course, an
> author could do so if they wanted to, like this:
> 
>   @value="a + xf:new-func( b )"
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> -- 
> Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
> 
> mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com
> 
> http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck
> 
> webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
> 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
> London, EC2A 4RR)
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> --
> 
> 
Inventive Designers' Email Disclaimer: 
http://www.inventivedesigners.com/email-disclaimer

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. 
--