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

Re: 2002Aug/0023-Response to your issue sent to the XForms WG about the XForms Last Call WD

From: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:31:48 +0200
Message-ID: <0f8b01c2694e$e62316a0$7ef5a8c0@srx41p>
To: "\"Jérôme Nègre\"" <jerome.negre@e-xmlmedia.fr>
Cc: "Thierry Michel" <tmichel@w3.org>, <w3c-forms@w3c.org>, <www-forms-editor@w3.org>

> > Sorry, but I fail to see the fundamental difference between repeat and
> > switch : why would repeat needs special attributes (repeat-*), but not
> > switch ?
> >
> > Jérôme

Jérôme,

I think the reply that you got sent was a little too short to explain, so
let me try here.

XHTML Modularization defines modules for the XHTML family. Each module
defines a content model and places where that model may be added to.

So, for tables as a case in point, you may add attributes everywhere, and
you may alter the content model of <th> and <td>, but not the content model
of <table>.

So to solve similar problems, the repeat-* attributes allow you to impose a
<repeat> structure over a content model that does not allow it (compare the
HTML <ins> and <del> elements, with the XMLSpec diff="add" diff="del"
attribute: it is much easier to add attributes to an existing content model
than get every markup language to adopt HTML's <ins> and <del> elements).

In the example you gave,

> However, the following syntax is also forbidden in XHTML:
>    <html:table>
>        <xforms:switch>
>            <xforms:case>
>                <html:tr>...</html:tr>
>            </xforms:case>
>            <xforms:case>
>                <html:tr>...</html:tr>
>            </xforms:case>
>        </xforms:switch>
>    </html:table>

The difference is, with switch you can factor out the markup to achieve the
same effect (move the switch into the table) You only have to reorder how
you mark it up. With repeat there is no way to achieve the effect.

I hope that this makes it clearer.

Best wishes,

Steven Pemberton

> > Thierry Michel wrote:
> > >
> > > Your issue sent to the W3C XForms WG about the XForms Last Call
Working
> > > Draft 21 August 2002
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xforms-20020821
> > >
> > > Your issue is archived at
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2002Aug/0023.html
> > >
> > >  XForms WG Resolution:
> > > No. See DTD modularisation.
> > >
> > > Please respond to state that you agree with this Resolution.
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 09:31:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 June 2009 18:12:12 GMT