Re: Proposed clarification of what constitutes the provision of inline content of the xforms instance

Thanks for your reply. I accept WG's argumentation and decision. Vlad 
Trakhtenberg.




"Steven Pemberton" <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl> 
Sent by: www-forms-editor-request@w3.org
13/05/2009 08:28

To
Vlad Trakhtenberg/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, www-forms-editor@w3.org, 
public-forms@w3.org
cc
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
Subject
Re: Proposed clarification of what constitutes the provision of  inline 
content  of the xforms instance






Thanks for this comment. The Forms WG has discussed it, and we understand 
that it may be a bit of an inconvenience for the author, but we believe 
that the processing rules are easier this way, and the user will get a 
fairly clear error message.

There is no loss of functionality with these rules, so we prefer to keep 
the rules as they are.

Many thanks again.

Steven Pemberton
For the Forms WG

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:43:17 +0100, Vlad Trakhtenberg <vladt@ca.ibm.com> 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I would like to propose to clarify XForms 1.1 Recommendation to say that
> the inline content of the xforms instance element is considered to be
> provided (in the context of section 3.3.2) if instance element has an
> 'elemental' content i.e. has an element child.
> Otherwise such benign markup as:
>
> <xforms:instance resource="http://example.org/testDataURI" >
> </xforms:instance>
>
> or
>
> <xforms:instance resource="http://example.org/testDataURI" ><!-- you 
data
> goes here --></xforms:instance>
>
> will cause arguably unnecessary fatal processing error (
> xforms-link-exception) because the provided [non-empty?!] inline content
> takes precedence over the resource attribute.
>
> Thanks,
> Vlad Trakhtenberg.