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

RE: Review of XForms working draft

From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 10:25:39 -0800
Message-ID: <BE47764CFF7D0549B1163F849BC6A8D12444CE@csmail.cardiff.com>
To: "'gilescope@yahoo.co.uk'" <gilescope@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: "'www-forms@w3.org'" <www-forms@w3.org>

Thanks for your time and feedback.

on 1) - I believe you are correct. Is this confusing enough that we should
consider just leaving the inclusive/exclusive versions and skip the
abbreviated one alltogether?

on 2) - I like this idea. We will consider something along these lines for
our ongoing research with the XForms Processing Model.


Micah Dubinko
Co-editor, W3C XForms Working Group

-----Original Message-----
From: Giles Cope [mailto:gec@hyperoffice.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 4:37 AM
To: www-forms@w3.org
Subject: Review of XForms working draft

1. 'max' for Number should be short for maxInclusive not maxExclusive
   (and 'min' respectivly).

2. In 9.4: 
   We do need a syntax to work on multiple models but,

	<xfm:textbox ref="instance::b/orderForm/shipTo/firstName">
   but we loose the idea of the current context using this syntax, 
   and have to specify everything from the root.

   We need something like:

	<xfm:textbox ref="instance::b./shipTo/firstName">

   but obviously with better syntax. Maybe we could select the current 
	context in the binding element:

			<xfm:bind id="myfirstname" ref="firstName""/>
			<xfm:bind id="myaddresszip" ref="address/zip"/>

my two cents,
"My sole reply," said he, "to that demand
Is action; when a fit request is made
Silence and deeds should follow out of hand."
                          -- Virgil [Canto XXIV, 76]
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2001 13:27:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:36:03 UTC