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

RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:40:06 -0800
To: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
Cc: "Erik Bruchez" <ebruchez@orbeon.com>, "Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF37472972.B2C6709E-ON88257563.0081B5EC-88257563.0081F430@ca.ibm.com>
That *is* what we say now, in prose.  The problem is that we then don't 
say what happens when the requirement is not met.  It's a requirement on 
authors not on implementers, so we either have to tell implementers what 
to do when authors don't meet the requirement or the implementations will 
not all behave the same authors don't meet the requirement.

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:
"Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
To:
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
Cc:
"Erik Bruchez" <ebruchez@orbeon.com>, "Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org>
Date:
02/20/2009 03:35 PM
Subject:
RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method



Ah, I checked the 1.0 schema; of course.  In Relax NG you can specify that 
one or the other must be required.
I hear a later revision of XML Schemas allows co-occurrence constraints as 
well. Why not just say it in prose then?
4) A conforming document must have either a method attribute or a method 
element.

From: John Boyer [mailto:boyerj@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:32 PM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Erik Bruchez; Forms WG
Subject: RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method


Hi Leigh, 

The problem is that we already say, from the schema perspective, that the 
method attribute is optional.  This is because we also have a method 
element child of submission, which can computationally determine the 
method with the value attribute. 
Further, because the method attribute exists, the method element child is 
not required either, again from the schema perspective. 

So we have this situation where neither the attribute nor the element is 
required, but we claim that one is required, but we don't say what happens 
if you don't put one.  The options are 

1) Make method="get" the default if neither the attribute nor the element 
is given. 
2) Specify xforms-submit-error (which we did for the resource 
attribute/element pair; see the diff on step 7 of submit event processing) 

3) Continue to not say anything and let implementations pick their own way 
of handling the problem (some will do #1, others #2, and others ...) 

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: 
"Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com> 
To: 
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, "Erik Bruchez" <ebruchez@orbeon.com> 
Cc: 
"Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org> 
Date: 
02/20/2009 03:19 PM 
Subject: 
RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method




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
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: 
02/18/2009 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
> Blog RSS feed: 
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/
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 23:40:16 UTC

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