W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > December 2011

Re: XForms 2.0 and XPath

From: Nick Van den Bleeken <Nick.Van.den.Bleeken@inventivegroup.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 15:19:11 +0000
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
CC: Leigh L Klotz Jr <leigh.klotz@xerox.com>, "<public-forms@w3.org>" <public-forms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3EEBCE95-63F3-4AE0-BBFB-0C1948F0BBB6@inventivegroup.com>
John (and others),

Maybe we can upgrade in XForms 2.0 base spec to XPath 2.0 data model, and in the expression model to XPath 2.0 AND use everywhere in XPath 2.0 concepts (sequence, atomic types, everywhere use schema types, ) AND write one short section how these concepts are mapped to XPath 1.0 (or even create a separate XPath 1.0 spec module). I'm volunteering to write such a section if you can have a close look at it (or even work closely together with me on it). Because it is been quite a while since I was 'forced/doomed' to use XPath 1.0.

What do you think of this proposal?

Kind regards,

Nick Van den Bleeken
R&D Manager

Phone: +32 3 821 01 70
Office fax: +32 3 821 01 71
nick.van.den.bleeken@inventivegroup.com<mailto:nick.van.den.bleeken@inventivegroup.com>
www.inventivedesigners.com


[cid:image001.png@01CBF2F8.1DA19110][cid:image002.png@01CBF2F8.1DA19110][cid:image003.png@01CBF2F8.1DA19110]

On 02 Dec 2011, at 21:06, John Boyer wrote:

Hi Leigh,

I am curious as to what other topics it is hampering the discussion of?

Surely it's not the context issue for delete, which is only exacerbated by this new feature called iterate but is already a problem in XForms 1.1.

I feel I've been very clear about the fact that this issue exists independently of the version of XPath.  The version of XPath makes a minor order difference on exactly what happens when a context node is deleted, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to have that difference, but otherwise the major order issue is deciding whether a deleted node can provide context after its deletion.

Since that topic is unrelated to the version of XPath, maybe we could get a list of what other issues are significantly blocked by the version of XPath.

Thanks,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
Distinguished Engineer, IBM Forms and Smarter Web Applications
IBM Canada Software Lab, Victoria
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com<mailto: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:        Leigh L Klotz Jr <leigh.klotz@xerox.com<mailto:leigh.klotz@xerox.com>>
To:        public-forms@w3.org<mailto:public-forms@w3.org>
Date:        02/12/2011 10:43 AM
Subject:        Re: XForms 2.0 and XPath
________________________________



Sorry, "behavior of XForms 2.0 with XPath 1.0."
On 12/02/2011 10:37 AM, Leigh L Klotz Jr wrote:

I propose that we drop XPath 1.0 from the XForms 2.0 specification.   An
XForms 2.0 processor can certainly support XPath 1.0 in its XForms 1.1
mode, but I believe we should expend no more group effort describing the
behavior of XForms 2.0 with XForms 1.1.

We have enough work to get XForms 2.0 out the door, and XPath 2.0 became
a W3C Recommendation in 2007.

We've worked out a lot of the practical issues of supporting XPath 1.0
with XForms 2.0, but the spec-level precision necessary makes for some
uncomfortable sections and restrictions, and is currently hampering
discussion on other topics.

Leigh.



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.


________________________________

Inventive Designers' Email Disclaimer:
http://www.inventivedesigners.com/email-disclaimer



image001.png
(image/png attachment: image001.png)

image002.png
(image/png attachment: image002.png)

image003.png
(image/png attachment: image003.png)

Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 15:19:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:56 UTC