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

Re: [Moderator Action] XForms WD 20010821 - root element etc confusion

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 18:14:31 +0200
Message-ID: <158a01c25364$fc530750$228a608a@inria.fr>
To: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>, <www-forms@w3.org>, <www-forms-editor@w3.org>

Moderator: sent to www-forms@w3.org and www-forms-editor@w3.org
----- Original Message -----
From: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>
To: <www-forms@w3.org>; <www-forms-editor@w3.org>; <xforms@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 2:16 PM
Subject: [Moderator Action] XForms WD 20010821 - root element etc confusion


>
>
>
> It seems to me that the WD needs some careful editing to remove potential
> confusion relating to what is and is not a "root element".
>
> The example in 2.1 uses a <root> element inside xforms:instance. In 7.2 it
is
> stated that instance data always has a single "root element". It seems to
me
> that it would be better to avoid <root> elements inside xforms:instance in
> examples. To leave them in is simply inviting avoidable confusion.
>
> Of course the Schema for XForms makes it clear that there need not be a
<root>
>  element as "root element" (sic) for instance data.
>
> Secondly, the term "root element" has a specific meaning in XML 1.0. It
> doesn't seem to me that it is always clear in the XForms WD when instance
> data is free standing and therefore may correctly be said to have a "root
> element" and when it is nested inside xforms:instance when it would be
> incorrect, in my view, to claim it has a "root element". The root element
> may, of course, be in a non-XForms host language.
>
> Andrew Watt
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 12:14:47 GMT

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