W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Erik to review Nick's xf:function changes

From: Nick Van den Bleeken <Nick.Van.den.Bleeken@inventivegroup.com>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 06:29:08 +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: <6FA5F703-8385-44AA-8BAD-CCA517E2E6E7@inventivegroup.com>
> I had the task (no action item number I think) of reviewing this diff:
>
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/index.php?title=XForms_2.0&diff=3795&oldid=3791
>
> 1. First, I applied a few minor updates:
>
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/index.php?title=XForms_2.0&diff=3796&oldid=3795
>
> Please review.
Those look fine for me
>
> 2. Second, I have a comment on the use of the `result` element. The
> spec now says "The constructor is a sequence of result elements."
>
> I had in mind that there could be only one `result` element in the
> end, specifying *the* result of the function. I haven't made this
> change yet. We can discuss in the next call.
I don't have a strong opinion about allowing only one or multiple result elements. You can construct a sequence with one result element, but maybe it is more readable if you construct the sequence with multiple result elements (in that case you can add comment statements before each result item if you want).
>
> -Erik

Nick

________________________________

Inventive Designers' Email Disclaimer:
http://www.inventivedesigners.com/email-disclaimer
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 06:37:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:08 UTC