W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms-editor@w3.org > December 2002

RE: XForms CR - how many previously reported errors were ignored?

From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 22:43:57 -0800
Message-ID: <BD2DBD26EE0BAA48B1A425C7BE7923002D005C@csmail.cardiff.com>
To: "'AndrewWatt2001@aol.com'" <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>, www-forms-editor@w3.org


The Working Group has considered your comments sent to www-forms-editor and
agreed on formal responses, contained in this and subsequent messages.

In response to the question titling this message: the Working Group policy
to consider every message that contains review comments.

The example in chapter 2 is appropriate; other messages have given the

Due to a separate issue, we have recently removed all references to
"LocationPath" from the specification.


Micah Dubinko, on behalf of the XForms Working Group

-----Original Message-----
From: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com [mailto:AndrewWatt2001@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 1:07 AM
To: www-forms@w3.org; www-forms-editor@w3.org
Cc: Xforms@yahoogroups.com
Subject: XForms CR - how many previously reported errors were ignored?

It is good to see the XForms CR appear but it is very disappointing to see 
errors reported in the previous WD persisting in the new document.

For example, the silly example in Chapter 2 where, supposedly, it is
to pay by cash via an electronic form is still there.

Is the XForms WG seriously suggesting that it is possible to pay by cash?

Why was that not changed? As far as I recall I pointed out that simply 
changing "Cash" to "Account" makes a ridiculous example into a credible one.

In the Glossary (and elsewhere), the idiosyncratic "LocationPath" is still 
present. If the XForms WG believes that such a form is an improvement over 
"location path" used in XPath 1.0 could that please be justified?

Andrew Watt
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 01:44:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:25:05 UTC