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

Comment on inputmode

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:23:01 -0700
To: public-forms@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC37DA32B.9EB1E221-ON88257651.006A2AE0-88257651.006A7AC0@ca.ibm.com>
The full text of Philippe's message includes one point of feedback from 
the director, which suggests that we could handle doing something better 
about inputmode as an erratum, rather than waiting until 1.2.  I'll put 
this on the agenda for a future telecon.  Any further mail list discussion 
on how to proceed is, of course, welcome.

Thanks,
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


----- Forwarded by John Boyer/CanWest/IBM on 10/16/2009 12:19 PM -----

From:
Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
To:
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
Date:
10/15/2009 01:05 PM
Subject:
Re: XForms 1.1 Advancement



John,

since Steven is away, I'll need your help here.

So, first, we got a positive outcome. congratulations.

Can we have the document ready for publication on October 20?

The Director made one comment:
[[
I encourage the Working Group to consider clarifying in the errata more
precisely which parts of Appendix E are truly non-normative,
informative, or optional.  For example, I suspect the Working Group
intends that the attribute value syntax in the first four sentences of
E.1 be considered normative (for any implementation that chooses to
implement the inputmode attribute) even though the list of possible
tokens is not.  Perhaps the definitive source of the script tokens
(ISO 15924) is meant to be normative (i.e. give the normative
spelling of a token when implemented) for those implementations
on systems that do implement any of the named scripts covered
by 15924.
]]

Can the WG consider this, independently of the publication on October
20?

Philippe
Received on Friday, 16 October 2009 19:23:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:52 UTC