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

Re: Spec review, part 1

From: Joern Turner <joern.turner@betterform.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:12:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4FD9AB13.4090107@betterform.de>
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
CC: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>, Erik Bruchez <erik@bruchez.org>, Nick Van den Bleeken <Nick.Van.den.Bleeken@inventivegroup.com>, public-forms@w3.org, public-xformsusers@w3.org
Hello,

just my 2 cents from our experience with our load embed implementation...
Am 14.06.12 00:38, schrieb John Boyer:
> 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.
I'm looking at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_2.0 and there 
is already a note saying:
"Note that the load action performs no special processing of id 
attributes; therefore authors should pay careful attention to avoid id 
conflicts."

I think this is pretty clear.

However here we hit a limitation regarding id handling - suppose you 
want to embed the same form twice. This simply won't work if the 
embedded model/group uses specific ids.

I know it's hard and we also haven't come up with a mechanism yet but it 
would have been good to at least try to address that issue. Just a guess 
- maybe we can add an attribute to load that allows to define a prefix 
to be added for every id in the embedded markup. As i said - just a 
first guess and surely not elaborate.
>
> 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?
Yes, i fully agree. Otherwise you loose any real chance to use embedding 
for modularization - let me explain: we try to setup our forms so that 
they can be used either standalone or embedded. But model init events 
are an important part of a form and if these events are not dispatched 
during embedding you'll end up with 2 different ways of processing a form.

Back in 2011 Lars Windauer was asked for preparing a spec text for embed 
but we did. In the meantime the WG seems to have moved forward so i'm 
not sure if that's fully relevant still. Just for reference you can 
still find our version here:
https://betterform.de/trac/wiki/loadEmbed

In our version we added the sentence:
"The processor begins initialization by dispatching 
xforms-model-construct to each XForms model in the embedded XML content 
if any. Processing concludes as described by 4.2 Initialization Events. "

Probably that helps here...
>
> 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 Thursday, 14 June 2012 09:13:23 UTC

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