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

Re: [XForms 1.1] i18n comment: Reference to definition of data types missing (PR#7)

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:20:43 +0900
Message-ID: <471EABFB.5000601@w3.org>
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
CC: www-forms-editor@w3.org, www-forms-editor-request@w3.org, John Boyer <xforms-issues@mn.aptest.com>

Hi John,

John Boyer wrote:
>
> Hi Felix,
>
> This does not seem at all necessary to require a non-normative 
> reference to a spec whose definition of a datatype came after our own 
> definition of the datatype and furthermore whose datatype is not equal 
> to our own and not in our namespace for that reason. We really need to 
> shut the spigot on changes so XForms 1.1 can get to the call for 
> implementations (CR), which this issue would not affect in any case 
> because it is four-years-old feature.

This is not a substantive issue and I'm fine with closing it without a 
change.

Felix

>
> John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
> STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
> Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
> Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
> IBM Victoria Software Lab
> E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com  
>
> Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
>
>
>
>
> *Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>*
> Sent by: www-forms-editor-request@w3.org
>
> 10/21/2007 10:07 PM
>
> 	
> To
> 	John Boyer <xforms-issues@mn.aptest.com>
> cc
> 	www-forms-editor@w3.org
> Subject
> 	Re: [XForms 1.1] i18n comment: Reference to definition of data types 
>  missing (PR#7)
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> Sorry if I made myself not clear: I was asking for a reference to an
> XQuery specification, not for changing the namespace of the XForms
> definitions. I'm especially convinced to not use the XML Schema
> namespace by your third reason: the empty strings allowed by the XForms
> versions. Nevertheless, I still think a non-normative reference to
> XQuery with the explanation about the differences (like you provided
> below) would be helpful.
>
> Felix
>
> John Boyer wrote:
> > Hi Felix,
> >
> > The working group considered this issue and decide to leave the datatype
> > definitions in the XForms namespace for three reasons.  First, 
> XForms is based
> > on XML Schema 1.0, so new types will be added to a future version of 
> XForms when
> > an updated version of XML schema is adopted.  Second, datatypes in 
> the XForms
> > namespace are more convenient for form authors because they do not 
> have to be
> > namespace qualified in 'type' MIPs.  Third, the XForms versions 
> actually are
> > differeent because they also permit empty strings, which is also 
> more convenient
> > for form authoring.
> >
> > Generally, the latter two reasons are particularly important as they 
> explain why
> > all the xsd simple types have corresponding xforms datatypes.  XML 
> schema has
> > the mindset of validating a "full" schema instance, i.e. data that 
> is about to
> > be processed by a server-side business process.  This is a bit of a
> > technological mismatch for forms, which describe the process for 
> getting from
> > "empty" schema instance to "full" schema instance.
> >
> > I hope you find this rationale satisfactory.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > John Boyer
> >
> >  
> >> Comment from the i18n review of:
> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xforms11-20070222/
> >>
> >> Comment 2
> >> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0704-xforms11/
> >> Editorial/substantive: S
> >> Location in reviewed document:
> >> 5.2.3 and 5.2.4
> >> Reference to definition of data types missing
> >>
> >> Comment:
> >>
> >> The data types
> >> dateTimeDuration
> >>   and
> >> yearMonthDuration
> >>   are described as XForms data types, but they are data types 
> defined in the
> >> XQuery Data Model 
> [http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xpath-datamodel-20070123/]
> >>   specification. Please provide a reference to this specification 
> from sec.  
> >> 5.2.3 and 5.2.4. See also the
> >> related comment from the XML Core WG  
> >> 
> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007Mar/0007.html]
> >> , which is basically the same.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 02:20:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 June 2009 18:12:16 GMT