W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > August 2001

Re: Levels of XForms (was: RE: Form function and presentation - Schema usage)

From: by way of Masayasu Ishikawa <joern@webman.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 05:42:32 -0400 (EDT)
To: www-forms@w3.org
Message-ID: <3B84D0B5.40802@webman.de>
hello sebastian,

thanx for considering these arguments.

Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer wrote:

> Joern,
> 
> you know what? I think the points you make are
> absolutely valid and need further consideration
> by the Working Group.
> 
> I don't see us go down the path again to define
> yet another "Simple Syntax" for the model. Been 
> there, done that. It is also important to point
> out that whilst your points in favour of such
> freedom for the model part in XForms are totally
> valid (really!), others do favour a concrete 
> permutation of the model defined in the spec.

> 
> If we as the W3C XForms WG go down the path of
> specifying a concrete model for XForms, we are
> obliged to re-use existing W3C technology - that
> is just the way it is - therefore we have to take 
> a subset of Schema (XForms Basic) or Schema as it 
> is (XForms Full). We simply don't have the 
> freedom of defining a completely "self-contained" 
> XForms spec - and I think that makes total sense 
> too: to build upon tested, pre-existing 
> components instead completely re-inventing the
> wheel.

absolutely agreed.


> 
> However, as I said, you have some valid points:
> If you have to "break the spec" to make an
> "xformisch" implementation happen, and for
> resource reasons you cannot even implement 
> the schema subset simply because of the verbose
> syntax - we have to take this serious.
> 
> Would the following solve your problem:
> 
> We define a new level of XForms conformance next
> to the two existing ones:
> 
> XForms Core: The basic XForms concept of 
>   Model-View-Controller, the binding mechanism
>   and the core XForms module(s) (<xform>, <model> &
>   <instance>). You may yourself choose and use any 
>   pre-existing or custom model language and any
>   UI language as well as of course any arbitrary
>   XML instance for data.

this is actually an interesting proposal and may give us the opportunity 
to stay in the standard, while doing our own in the inside. actually 
we're mainly interested to gain this alternative for the model-part - 
the UI-part is largely satisfying (even when there are some problematic 
details).

i would very much welcome this alternative.

joern

> 
> XForms Basic: XForms Core + Concrete Model as 
>   W3C XML Schema Subset (Part 2 Datatypes) 
>   + XForms UI.
> 
> XForms Full: XForms Core + Concrete Model as 
>   Full W3C XML Schema + XForms UI.
> 
> 
> Food for thought. Others on this list: Opinions?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Sebastian
> 
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 06:12:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:21:49 GMT