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

RE: Need updated work on submission header feature

From: Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:00:41 -0700
Message-ID: <E254B0A7E0268949ABFE5EA97B7D0CF4060E828C@USA7061MS01.na.xerox.net>
To: "John Boyer" <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-forms@w3.org>
John,
Here it is.  Since you are editor I was hesitant to publish
modifications without going through you so I sent it to you
individually, on September 8th.  Later that day I sent an updated XSD
file.  
 
Attached is the final message I sent, containing the submit.xml file,
the XSD file, and a description of changes.
 
We had discussed adding a note highlighting the responsibility of an
XForms processor submitting via HTTP 1.1 to follow 
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec4.html#sec4.2 "Message
Headers"; however, this note would be informative, as the normative
reference for HTTP 1.1 would remain RFC2616. 
 
I did not write add this informative note as it was not clear where to
put it, but if we did it would look something like this:
 
  >note>The XForms element <el>header</el> is designed to provide enough
information for compliant serialization of HTTP 1.1 headers, but the
responsibility for following <bibref>RFC 2616</bibref> Section 4.2
"Message Headers" requirements for combining and ordering of headers
rests with the implementor.</note>
 
If you agree, I would be grateful if you could place this note, along
with the correct markup, where it should go.
 
Leigh.

________________________________

From: John Boyer [mailto:boyerj@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 6:17 AM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: public-forms@w3.org
Subject: Need updated work on submission header feature



Hi Leigh, 

I have an action item to install your new submission header material
into the 1.1 spec. 
While I do see a good discussion thread on www-forms, I don't actually
see the email where the actual new spec-ready content is located.  I'm
hesitant to piece this together from the thread. 
Would you be able to pull this together if not already done, or point
out the mail archive link if this is already done and I am just somehow
missing it? 

Thanks, 
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
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer> 
Blog RSS feed: 
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw> 




attached mail follows:


Here's an update of submit.xml which removes the sentence "One header
entry is generated for each node selected by this attribute." from the
header/@nodeset attribute description.

For convenience I've attached the schema file as well though it's
unchanged from the last version I sent. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Klotz, Leigh 
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 12:55 PM
To: 'John Boyer'
Cc: 'Klotz, Leigh'
Subject: Proposed text for submit.xml for xf:headers

John,
Here is my proposed text based on a pull of
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/xforms11.full.zip today.

Here is what I did:

1. moved item 5 to before item 9 in the submission handling making it
the new number 8 step.
2. changed "header" to "header entry" everywhere it is used before the
#8 step (i.e., in the xf:header description) 3. added the combine
attribute and described it in xf:header, diff-marked in various places.
4. disallowed multiple xf:name child elements of xf:header.
5. allowed multiple xf:value elements of xf:header. 
6. specified header entry order
7. added an example drawn from
http://news.oreilly.com/2008/08/xforms-and-restful-web-service.html
which was the driving use case.
8. I added an informative note to indicate that nodesets passed to
value/@value are combined with spaces, and to use header/@nodeset
instead.

Here is what I did not do:
I did not add any references to MIME or HTTP.

I believe this answers all the concerns except for
- pointer to http
- comma-separated

I've left both of these as unspecified by XForms, because we already
refer to HTTP and HTTP already says what to do with headers.
If you or the WG feels we need to put in a note explaining this more,
I'll need guidance on exactly where to place the note in this file as we
don't have an HTTP-specific section.

Leigh.




Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 18:01:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:49 UTC