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

Re: Spec review, part 1

From: Nick Van den Bleeken <Nick.Van.den.Bleeken@inventivegroup.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 13:27:40 +0000
To: Erik Bruchez <erik@bruchez.org>
CC: "<public-forms@w3.org>" <public-forms@w3.org>, "<public-xformsusers@w3.org>" <public-xformsusers@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2CF538D2-234F-4BC3-95A7-0A16BAF3A46C@inventivegroup.com>
See inline reply
Kind regards,

Nick Van den Bleeken
R&D Manager

Phone: +32 3 425 41 02
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 06 Jun 2012, at 07:58, Erik Bruchez wrote:

All,

I have started reviewing the spec, namely the diffed version [1].

Some comments below:

1. Introduction

This is not new but I have never liked the use of "XForm" (singular).
The only place in the spec doing this is here "An XForm allows" ->
suggesting using "XForms allows". Need action for this.
Done

2. JSON

Are we sure we want to specify our own JSON mapping? Aren't there
multiple competing options? I remember reading some skepticism about
this at XML Prague.
If the map functionality in XQuery/XSLT gets fleshed out and they make it usable for us (be able to use path expressions), maps would be a better approach in my opinion.

There is good (bit dated) blog post of Eric Van der Vlist about it http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog/2012/02/25/xdm-maps-should-be-first-class-citizens/


3. CSV

Do we really want to do this?
No opinion

4. Common Attributes: I don't think the changes discussed last week
wrt moving more attributes to Commons are in, right?
Is in there and John made some changes

5. Functions

5.1. Do we really need "override"? what was the purpose of this?
I think it is a handy feature (XSLT also has it). This allows form authors to easily define fallback implementations if a processor doesn't implement a certain function.
It also allows flexible override functionality when including external function libraries.

5.2. I don't think we have ruled out my proposal to simplify this with
no nested elements (i.e. no <var>, <sequence>, <script>). Need to
discuss.
We need indeed to put this back on the agenda

6. Repeat over atomic values

In 9.3.3, we need to be more clear about how atomic values "match"
(provide example) upon repeat sequence update. Need action to improve
this.
See http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/index.php?title=XForms_2.0&diff=3699&oldid=3696 (also added text that there is no context node if you repeat over non-nodes)

7. "xforms-script-language-not-supported-exception"

A bit shocked by the length of this eventů
Suggestion?

8. Insert

We talked about improving this action, maybe with an "into" attribute.
Should we still consider this? If so need action to complete it.

9. show="embed"

I think the current text is still very incomplete. Need to
discuss/action to complete it.
Leigh added this just before he left the group, I also expressed my concerns about this text at the last editorial meeting.

In general, there are some wording issues (tenses, in particular). How
do we fix that?

I haven't yet reviewed the XPath Expression Module.

I don't know if any of the above needs to be addressed for a FPWD.

-Erik

[1] http://goo.gl/xi8IW


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, 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 Thursday, 7 June 2012 13:28:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:57 UTC