W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > February 2012

XForms 2 and XPath 1, was Re: Draft minutes for 2012-02-01

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:41:39 -0800
To: "Leigh L. Klotz, Jr." <Leigh.Klotz@Xerox.com>
Cc: public-forms@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA465FA15.69F2E168-ON88257999.007B84E1-88257999.007CAB56@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Everyone,

Previously I said it was more important for XPath 1 to be *required* to 
implement under XForms 1.2, whereas for XForms 2.0 it is OK to go down to 
[*recommended*  + allowed to be supported by XPath 2 compat mode].

While it is true that XPath 2 came out a long time ago, we do still need a 
gentler transition for XForms 1.1 content, which is xpath 1 focused. 

I remain unclear what is the big blob of work that is being avoided by 
ripping out the lion's share of the work already done to be clear about 
xpath 1 works with XForms 2.

I also think there are perhaps a few things that will come to mind as 
being appropriate for XPath 1 only, but then I still have a 
lowest-common-denominator expectation that those same forms will work when 
someone does use an XForms 2.0 + XPath 2 processor.  One that comes to 
mind is the eval-in-context() function.  In Xpath 2 you don't need this 
because the grammar of XPath 2 fixes a grammatic limitation in XPath 1. 
But, if I want to write a form that also works in XForms 2 + XPath 1 
processor, then I would use the eval-in-context() function.

Hasn't the bulk of the work already been done by Nick to handle both?  Why 
get rid of it?

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 

Twitter: http://twitter.com/johnboyerphd
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>
To:     public-forms@w3.org
Date:   01/02/2012 09:08 AM
Subject:        Draft minutes for 2012-02-01



Please respond with corrections.
Please start new threads for discussion.

[attachment "2012-02-01.html" deleted by John Boyer/CanWest/IBM] 
Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 22:43:31 UTC

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