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

RE: Message 67: Response to your issue sent to the XForms WG abo ut the XForms Last Call WD

From: Joel Faul <jfaul@cardiff.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:25:34 -0700
Message-ID: <E840F0B7E6189547BDB91DA8BF2228AB03B9B4DE@csmail.cardiff.com>
To: Thierry Michel <IMCEAMAILTO-tmichel+40w3+2Eorg@cardiff.com>
Cc: www-forms-editor@w3.org

Requiring two interoperable implementations is definitely the right idea.
I have a couple of questions though.

A. Since there are two conformance levels listed (Basic and Full), which
conformance level is any implementation required to meet? I think to be
successful, there must be both - meaning we must require a complete Full
implementation, a complete Basic implementation on a target platform and one
other implementation of each feature. (If XForms Basic cannot be implemented
on a phone or handheld, then it has little use being in the document at
all).

B. Additionally, should the fully conforming implementations be a Generator
or a Processor? It may be implied to be a Processor, but it would be worth
clarifying.

Let me propose the following text change to section 2 that incorporates both
of these comments:

    2.. An implementation report shows that there is at least one
  interoperable implementation of each feature, one fully conforming
  XForms Full Processor implementation and one fully conforming XForms
  Basic Processor implementation on a target platform.

J Joel Faul			Director, Product Development
jfaul@cardiff.com		http://cardiff.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Thierry Michel [mailto:tmichel@w3.org]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 6:33 AM
To: Joel Faul
Cc: www-forms-editor@w3.org
Subject: Message 67: Response to your issue sent to the XForms WG about
the XForms Last Call WD




Joel Faul,

Your issue sent to the W3C XForms WG about the XForms Last Call Working
draft
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xforms-20020118/

Your issue is archived at

a.. Archived:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2002Feb/0099.html

-----------------------
XForms WG Resolution about CR exit criteria: (from the status document of
the upcoming CR ):
This Candidate Recommendation provides an opportunity for these changes to
be reflected in implementations, and for the XForms Working Group to collect
test cases and information about implementations. We expect that sufficient
feedback to determine its future will have been received by 05 March 2003.
Please send review comments before the end of the review period to
www-forms-editor@w3.org. The archive for the list is accessible online.

On completion of the review, the XForms Working Group will advance the
specification to Proposed Recommendation according to the following exit
criteria:

  1.. Sufficient reports of implementation experience have been gathered to
demonstrate that XForms Processors based on the specification are
implementable and have compatible behavior.
  2.. An implementation report shows that there is at least one
interoperable implementation of each feature and one fully conforming
implementation.
  3.. Formal responses to all comments received by the Working Group.

Any feedback on patterns of implementation and use of this specification
would be very welcome. A list of known XForms Implementations is available.
We also welcome contributions of XForms test cases.

While we welcome implementation experience reports, the XForms Working Group
will not allow early implementation to constrain its ability to make changes
to this specification prior to final release.

------------------------------------------------------------

Please respond to state that you agree with this Resolution.
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 16:25:44 GMT

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