W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms-editor@w3.org > February 2009

Re: XForms 1.1 delete processing - proposed editorial clarification & proposed namespace node immutability statement

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:37:57 -0800
To: Vlad Trakhtenberg <vladt@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-editor@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD3B2A9E0.A5AF39F3-ON88257568.00608753-88257568.0060CD78@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Vlad,

The working group agreed that inserting, deleting and setting the value of 
namespace nodes and root nodes is not supported and that the insert, 
delete and setvalue actions would be amended to say that requests for 
setting the value of, deleting, or using these nodes as the origin of an 
insert would all be ignored.  The XForms 1.1 specification will be amended 
accordingly and implementations can proceed with this understanding.

Thank you,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications
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
Blog RSS feed: 

Vlad Trakhtenberg/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-editor@w3.org
02/23/2009 08:01 PM
XForms 1.1 delete processing - proposed editorial clarification & proposed 
 namespace node immutability statement

Hi all, 

I noticed that in the description of the delete action processing : 
in step 4 the deletion of the root [document] node itself is not 
explicitly 'prohibited' (or rather ignored), while the deletion of the 
'root document element' of an instance is. 
I also think, that the similar but perhaps wider clarification statement 
is required with regard to namespace nodes. The spec is explicit in 
adopting the XPath data model, as such some XPath expressions over the 
instance data can easily produce namespace nodes which do not have a full 
DOM underpinning behind them, which, in turn, makes them [arguably] 
I would like to propose to the working group (if it agrees with my point) 
to add a general statement to the spec to that effect, or at least 
explicitly mention them in delete, insert, setvalue, etc. actions as not 
fitting the bill. 

Vlad Trakhtenberg. 
IBM, Victoria Lab.
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:38:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:25:12 UTC