W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms-editor@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Last call comment about readonly property with calculate (PR#45)

From: David Landwehr <david.landwehr@picoforms.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:03:22 +0200
Message-ID: <46704D8A.2090301@picoforms.com>
To: John Boyer <xforms-issues@mn.aptest.com>
CC: www-forms-editor@w3.org

The decission is not acceptable as I asked for a different resolution. 
For big forms optimization of the master dependency graph is of great 
importance and this resolution detroys the general optimization.

I will read the minuts from the f2f to see on what ground my proposal 
was disregarded and ask for this to be taken into review again.

/David

John Boyer skrev:
> We agree it was unclear, but we find that calculate merely defaults readonly to
> true, and that it can be set to false, and that there are use cases, namely
> default value. We tested the use case and found it works. We changed the note in
> 4.3.6 [ http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#evt-recalculate]
> and put an example in MIP for readonly [
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#model-prop-readOnly]
>
> Please let us know if this resolution is acceptable.
>
> Thank you,
> The Forms Working Group
>
>   
>> Having the following:
>> <xf:model>
>>   <xf:instance>
>>     <data xmlns="">value</data>
>>   </xf:instance>
>>   <xf:bind nodeset="." readonly="false()" calculate="1"/>
>> </xf:model>
>>
>> It is not spelled out in the specification that it is possible to
>> override the default state when it has a calculate on it. The default
>> value is true() when the node has a calculate on it. On the other side
>> it is not specified that it is not allowed. I think it should not be
>> allowed since it is not clear when the value will be recalculated
>> because a node cannot take itself as dependent. E.g. an insert or delete
>> will recalculate the value even if the user has updated the value (this
>> must also happen if an insert happens in another instance). This could
>> be a problem for implementation which isolates the creating of
>> dependencies between instances.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> David
>>
>>
>>     
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 20:03:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 June 2009 18:12:15 GMT