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

Re: [Moderator Action] Re: XForms 3.2.2 Linking Attributes [Re-send]

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 18:13:14 +0200
Message-ID: <155901c25364$ce98ca70$228a608a@inria.fr>
To: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>, <www-forms-editor@w3.org>
Moderator: sent to www-forms-editor@w3.org 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com 
  To: www-forms-editor@w3.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 6:48 PM
  Subject: [Moderator Action] Re: XForms 3.2.2 Linking Attributes [Re-send]


  [The first copy of this email was sent to:steven.pemberton@cwi.nl, www-forms-editors@w3.org 
  CC: www-svg@w3.org, www-forms@w3.org, xforms@yahoogroups.com]

  Steven,

  Thanks for the prompt reply so soon after your return from vacation.

  I am copying this reply to www-svg since the design approach you allude to may have implications for a possible SVG and XForms Profile at a future date.

  In a message dated 27/08/2002 16:59:32 GMT Daylight Time, steven.pemberton@cwi.nl writes:



    > 2. If the [src] attribute has XLink-compliant behaviour why isn't it in
    the XLink
    > namespace with XLink attribute names?

    Since XLink makes syntactic restrictions on markup using it (only one URL
    per element) it makes it very difficult for markup like XForms, that is
    designed to be integrated into other languages, to use it, since there is no
    way of knowing a priori if any potential host language already has URIs on
    relevant elements, or requires other URIs on elements being integrated into
    it.


  I would like to be significantly clearer about which "problem" the proposed "solution" actually addresses.

  If I read your comment correctly, some other language has implicit significant design constraints on XForms. Is that a fair conclusion? I don't recall that being clearly stated in the XForms WD. Perhaps it should be?

  Which languages, current or future, require more than one URI on an XForms element? To achieve which functionality? Would an XLink extended link provide the "missing" functionality?

  Which XForms elements depend on more than one URI being present on an element in a host language? In passing, how does bypassing XLink on the XForms element affect the presence of zero, one or more URIs on an element in a host language? This seems to me, at first sight, to be a spurious point but I am open to be corrected.

  Could you please provide concrete examples of where / when you envisage that the points you mention might be a tangible issue for XForms?

  Would I be correct in surmising that one possible constraining language is XHTML 2.0?



    Therefore to bypass this problem, we use XLink semantic properties, but not
    syntactic properties.

    We anticipate the publication within two weeks of the first public working
    draft of a specification for layering XLink properties onto attributes
    without using the XLink syntax.


  This seems unsatisfactory to me. To propose that XForms proceed to Candidate Recommendation on the implicit basis of a document which has not yet reached first public Working Draft stage seems unwise. It almost suggests that a fait accompli is the unstated aim.

  As Ann Navarro likely will have informed you there are several unanswered questions on a discussion on XML-Dev relating to XLink and XHTML 2.0. I was left with the impression that further information would be provided on those points on your return from leave. Much of that discussion was bogged down because of the absence of a public draft stating the case about supposes inadequacies of XLink, perhaps the paper you now refer to.

  I know that many will read the document with interest when it emerges. It would be a courtesy if you could let www-forms and XML-Dev know when that paper is publicly available.

  Regards

  Andrew Watt 
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 12:13:48 GMT

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