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

Spec review, part 1

From: Erik Bruchez <erik@bruchez.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 22:58:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAc0PEUiWTyUfgYh+MD0R+jEA49hJ3K5PW8_31NxcNOFJfn6Xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-forms@w3.org
Cc: public-xformsusers@w3.org

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.


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.

3. CSV

Do we really want to do this?

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

5. Functions

5.1. Do we really need "override"? what was the purpose of this?

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

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

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

A bit shocked by the length of this eventů

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.

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.


[1] http://goo.gl/xi8IW
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 05:59:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:37:41 UTC