W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > April 2000

xforms

From: Pawson, David <DPawson@rnib.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 09:52:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <39B19660C174D311BB9000A0C9E01C3F18BB73@corfu.rnib.org.uk>
To: "'www-forms@w3.org'" <www-forms@w3.org>
Comments from initial read of xforms.

>From datamodel.

Terminology:
Why facets?
Many other words are appearing in other recs for the same idea.
It is an attribute, why give it another name.


<quote> It is recommended that user agents offer date and time pickers which
offer ...</quote>
None of those I have seen have been very accessible?

<quote>Binary data could be packaged either in-place as part of XML form
data </quote>
What of the charset defn of XML? 

5.3 Could lead to horrible complexities if status was misspelled, married is
not a permitted value
for status etc. Could another type of pointer be used which might be more
robust?
<string name="spouse" required="status is 'married'"/>

5.4 As above, question robustness of cross references. Are you planning to
require a 'validity check'
or parse prior to use?  Will you be avoiding / and using div as per xpath?

5.5 Issue.
 What assumptions are behind this issue?
  The re-work going on in the XSLT world to review common extensions may be
of use. Is this group
   presuming an HTML like environment? 
   Will 'form filling' not be a valid machine to machine operation?
   Must my scripts be javascript? Can I use java/C++ functions?

6.3 <q>Groups can be nested as needed for creating hierarchical datatypes.
<group> elements are intended to be treated as "objects" in scripting
languages such as ECMAScript. For instance, you could access the street in
above data structure using the syntax: customer.street. </q>
 should a data model make such  blatant implementation oritented statements?

[Issue: If the same datatype is used multiple times in the same data model,
it might become tiresome to keep repeating the same definition over and
over. Is it worth providing a short cut for this situation?]
Isn't the entity usage ideal for this? 

7.x I'm curious why you have adopted an Ecmascript approach when the usages
of xpath xslt
might possibly form a more usable base, providing certainly the relative
path accesses, and some
of the functions. 


Regards, DaveP
AC RNIB
Received on Friday, 28 April 2000 11:29:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:21:47 GMT