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

Re: XForms function namespace change?

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:44:55 -0700
To: Erik Bruchez <erik@bruchez.org>
Cc: ebruchez@gmail.com, Public Forms <public-forms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF05A09A2A.1D0A2F0F-ON88257A0F.0060FA7F-88257A0F.0061815F@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Nick, 

I agree with Erik. I also hadn't realized they were in a different 

So +1 to the same namespace.

Only question is, why did you change the year to 2004.  The XForms 
namespace has the year 2002, not 2004.  In fact, the document conventions 
in the xpath module still does have xforms and xf prefixes defined to be 
http://www.w3.org/2002/xforms/and I see no extra entry in section 1.4 for 
any xpath functions namespace.

I think this is why we missed it is that we're looking in 1.4 document 
conventions, but there is another location, section 5, which defines more 
reserved namespaces, and that seems like the wrong place.  I'd recommend 
just dumping section 5, and/or copying any remaining fragment of it to 
Section 1.4.

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: 

From:   Erik Bruchez <erik@bruchez.org>
To:     Public Forms <public-forms@w3.org>
Date:   31/05/2012 09:19 AM
Subject:        Re: XForms function namespace change?
Sent by:        ebruchez@gmail.com

I hadn't even realized they were in a different namespace!

So yes absolutely +1. The last thing we need is one more namespace.


On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Nick Van den Bleeken
<Nick.Van.den.Bleeken@inventivegroup.com> wrote:
> All,
> Currently the XForms functions are in
> the 'http://www.w3.org/2002/xforms-functions' namespace. I probably
> suggested this a year ago or so. But I would propose the put the xforms
> functions just in the XForms namespace (http://www.w3.org/2004/xforms/).
> My reasoning is:
> Less namespaces is simpler
> some users already bind xf to the XForms NS, when they copy in an 
example of
> an xfroms function call they probably will forget to change the function
> prefix to something else and map the new prefix to the xforms function
> namespace (it is also cumbersome, error prone, and confusing for some
> people)
> There is no technical limitation why the XForms functions can't be in 
> XForms namespace
> Could you please reply to this e-mail if you don't agree, we are going 
> discuss this on next teleconf, but it is conceptually a big change!
> 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
> www.inventivedesigners.com
> ________________________________
> Inventive Designers' Email Disclaimer:
> http://www.inventivedesigners.com/email-disclaimer
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 17:49:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:07 UTC