W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > February 2009

Update needed for 4.7.c [was: RE: Question about lazy authoring]

From: Nick Van den Bleeken <Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:07:06 +0100
To: Keith Wells <wellsk@us.ibm.com>
CC: Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>, Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Message-ID: <98F519CDC2FA6146AE00069E9A1D91FD5CC4658080@erganix.dc.intranet>
Keith,

Could you update test case 4.7.c by adding an instance to this test case?

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<mailto:Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com>
PS: I'll be sending in a full test report for Chiba this weekend.

From: John Boyer [mailto:boyerj@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: dinsdag 17 februari 2009 7:57
To: Erik Bruchez; Nick Van den Bleeken
Cc: Forms WG
Subject: Re: Question about lazy authoring


Hi Nick,

Why is this a question about lazy authoring?
The test you identified is testing the IDREF mechanism.  It is not intended to test of lazy authoring, so it is a bad test because it will run afoul of a lazy authoring problem before getting to the issue it claims to test, which is whether the index function returns NaN when it can't find the identified repeat.

Erik's point about amending the eval context of an xpath when their is no context node would make a good feature/suggestion+test for Section 7.2, except it is probably better for XForms 2.0 because in XForms 1.x we have Xpath 1.0, which requires a context node as part of the context.  I suppose we could make do if all current xpath 1.0 implementations allowed evaluation without a starting context node, but this is probably not an issue we have to spend a lot of cycles on right now.

For lazy authoring, I think you need at least one real UI binding to be expressed because otherwise the lazy authored instance will be empty, which is not allowed.  If you squint at the spec in just the right way, you can see it producing the same kind of exception as if you had put this into the model:

<instance/>

Cheers,
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:

Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>

To:

Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>

Date:

02/16/2009 01:08 PM

Subject:

Re: Question about lazy authoring


________________________________



XProc solves this issue by saying the following [1]:

  "If there is no binding and there is no default readable port then
the context node is an empty document node."

Something like this would make sense to me for XForms, but it would
have to be added to the spec.

-Erik

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/#xpath10-processors

On Feb 16, 2009, at 1:32 AM, Nick Van den Bleeken wrote:

> All,
>
> Test case 4.7.c has no instance and no controls that have a node set
> binding, but it has a value attribute on an output control is this
> supposed to work?
>
> In my opinion you can't construct an XPath context because you don't
> have an instance, because no form controls refer to an instance... I
> can work around this and create an instance when there is a form
> control that has a value attribute, but this isn't correct to how I
> read the spec.
>
> What are your opinions about this?
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick Van den Bleeken
>
> 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.
> --
>

--
Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
http://www.orbeon.com/




--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, 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 by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 08:08:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:50 UTC