W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2003

Re: XForms Basic commentary

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:11:57 +0000 (UTC)
To: ajvincent@juno.com
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0312051200220.19623@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 ajvincent@juno.com wrote:
>
> editable="editable" doesn't seem so ugly; it's a similar attribute value
> to those XHTML 1.0+ defines.

Yeah, they're ugly too. :-)


> Section 3.4, the add button should probably be in a
> <tfoot><tr><td>...</td></tr></tfoot> section.

It could. I think that would confuse the example a bit though so I'll
leave it as is for now.


> Section 4:  Are additional events needed for adding and subtracting rows
> from a repeat template, or for moving a repetition block?  You have the
> DOM 2 mutation events for altering the document, and the click event for
> the add/remove/move buttons.  But for the repeat template itself,
> perhaps it would be appropriate to dispatch events there too, and have
> the template's default event listener for those events be the methods
> you describe.

Interesting idea. I'll look into it.


> You might want to prefix the events introduced with "XFormsBasic".
> Consider DOM 2 Events, which added several events (notably mutations),
> all of which were prefixed with "DOM".

I did consider this, but as this is intended to work in an XHTML context,
I think it would look a bit odd.


> You mention namespaces a couple times; this specification should define
> its own namespace, probably, or use the XForms namespace.

It uses the XHTML namespace. I do not want to require that authors declare
two namespaces just to write Web pages.


> Section 5.3, "The message entity is an XML 1.1 document..."  This is,
> imho, a very bad idea.  It should allow XML 1.0 as well!  (Note that XML
> 1.1 support in many web applications will not be available right
> away...)

1.1 support should be available by the time this spec becomes widely used.
(It is trivial to upgrade a 1.0 parser to 1.1.) The point is to limit the
possible outputs as much as possible so that the job of parsing the result
is very easy.


> Also, what if there ever is an XML 1.2?

What about it? A new version of this spec could be released to address
this, if needed.


Thanks for your feedback!

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 07:12:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:37 GMT