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 16:38:07 -0800
To: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
Cc: "Erik Bruchez" <ebruchez@orbeon.com>, "Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF94A4D082.2A80203C-ON88257564.00017375-88257564.00036D9E@ca.ibm.com>
No we don't, though that's a little like asking "why make something better 
if it still won't be perfect?"

It's also not really the same issue.  If you find a schema violation like 
the one you're showing, the usual web behavior of ignoring the 
non-understandable content is what happens most of the time, and the spec 
doesn't say much on the point.
This situation is different because the spec does say something definitive 
because we're talking about a known attribute/element pair and how it is 
processed by a defined processing model.  Except we didn't say exactly 
what to do in the error scenario.

If you look at step 5 of submit processing, we say to get the method.
If you look at step 6 of submit processing, we say to get the resource. In 
diffs since CR, the WG decided to fix the problem of not specifying a 
resource by specifically providing an xforms-submit-error with error-type 
of resource-error.

See the diff mark in this section:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#submit-evt-submit

Now we have exactly the same situation in step 5 as we fixed in step 6.

This is the context in which I meant that we have three solutions:

1) Ignore the problem because there are other schema violations we don't 
cover and we'll never be perfect
2) Fix the problem by making method="get" the default, which also aligns 
with the web and doesn't introduce another error-type
3) Fix the problem by making an xforms-submit-error with an error-type.

#1 and #3 have about the same amount of merit in this case.  #2 seems 
better to me.

The addition of the error for absence of resource was very useful because 
an author can now use a resource-less submission to test validity of data. 
 If the error-type is validation-error, then data is invalid.  If the 
error-type is resource-error, then the data is valid.

But for method, there is no utility in the error, so #1 and #3 get about 
the same mileage.  But #2 simplifies authoring, aligns to current web 
default, and makes one less place in the spec where we tell implementers 
that authors are required to do something but then don't say how to deal 
with the error case.

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 03:54 PM
Subject:
RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method



What do we tell processors to do in this situation:
 
<xf:model>
  <xf:fnord />
</xf:model >
 
?
 

From: John Boyer [mailto:boyerj@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:40 PM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Erik Bruchez; Forms WG
Subject: RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method


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 Saturday, 21 February 2009 00:38:12 UTC

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