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

RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method

From: Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:16:19 -0800
Message-ID: <E254B0A7E0268949ABFE5EA97B7D0CF4070EFB52@USA7061MS01.na.xerox.net>
To: "John Boyer" <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>, "Erik Bruchez" <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Cc: "Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org>
Or leave unspecified behavior and let the user agent handle it however
else it handles Schema violations.
  
<xsd:attribute name="method" use="required">


________________________________

From: public-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:public-forms-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of John Boyer
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:40 PM
To: Erik Bruchez
Cc: Forms WG
Subject: Re: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method



Hi Erik, 

Another more compelling possibility is to simply say that "get" is the
default method.  This is simpler editorially, does not introduce a
further error-type, and aligns with the default currently used on the
web.  Does that sound good? 

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
<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> 





From: 	Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com> 
To: 	Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org> 
Date: 	02/18/2009 04:17 PM 
Subject: 	Re: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission
method

________________________________




That sounds reasonable except that it is a little annoying to have to  
add a new "method-error" error type, since this type does not exist yet.

-Erik

On Feb 18, 2009, at 1:54 PM, John Boyer wrote:

>
> At some time since CR, it was noticed that we did not say what a  
> submission would do if the resource URI was not specified, and we  
> have corrected the 1.1 spec to say that you get an xforms-submit- 
> error with error-type of resource-error
>
> I was doing a code review on Ubiquity XForms implementation of the  
> method element, and noticed that the 1.1 spec has the same problem  
> for the method.  The spec says that one of the method attribute or  
> method element must be specified, but it does not say what happens  
> if the author violates the requirement.  It looks like a simple  
> omission error, i.e. clearly you should ge tan xforms-submit-error  
> with an error-type of method-error.
>
> 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> 
>

--
Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
http://www.orbeon.com/ <http://www.orbeon.com/> 
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 23:17:43 UTC

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