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

RE: Spec review, part 1

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:38:39 -0700
To: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
Cc: Erik Bruchez <erik@bruchez.org>, Nick Van den Bleeken <Nick.Van.den.Bleeken@inventivegroup.com>, public-forms@w3.org, public-xformsusers@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA0992F38.3B87CB45-ON88257A1C.007B5C39-88257A1C.007C63EA@ca.ibm.com>
So I suppose the note telling authors that no special processing occurs so 
don't let IDs clash really means implementation-specific behavior if they 
do.

But what does it mean to say that a new model should behave as if it had 
been in the page all along?
We're well past the phase where the xforms processor initializes all 
models by dispatching xforms-model-construct to them.  Wouldn't it be 
better to be explicit and say that any newly embedded model receives 
xforms-model-construct... which begets xforms-model-construct-done, which 
begets xforms-ready?

Also, a special attribute of targetid is clearly missing, since it is 
referenced in the text.

Cheers,
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:   "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
To:     Erik Bruchez <erik@bruchez.org>
Cc:     Nick Van den Bleeken <Nick.Van.den.Bleeken@inventivegroup.com>, 
<public-forms@w3.org>, <public-xformsusers@w3.org>
Date:   13/06/2012 03:23 PM
Subject:        RE: Spec review, part 1



I agree. 

-----Original Message-----
From: ebruchez@gmail.com [mailto:ebruchez@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Erik 
Bruchez
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:23 AM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Nick Van den Bleeken; public-forms@w3.org; public-xformsusers@w3.org
Subject: Re: Spec review, part 1

Looking at this again, I think what I felt was missing could be
covered with wording along the lines of:

  "things after embedding the form are as if the included models and
groups had been in the page in the first place"

This would make it clear what happens with events, id resolution, and
visibility of the embedded form on the embedding form, in particular.

-Erik

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Leigh L Klotz Jr <leigh.klotz@xerox.com> 
wrote:
> Is this for submission or for load?  We agreed to load/@show=embed at a 
F2F
> meeting.  It was proposed (and implemented) by betterForm, and it's also
> implemented on XSLTForms, so we have one split-agent and one client
> implementation.  We also agreed that submission should have the same
> capabilites as load, so that's why I added it there.
>
> Leigh.
>
>
>>> 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?
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 22:39:43 UTC

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