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

RE: Review of Xforms working draft

From: Joseph Perkins <JPerkins@marketscout.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:17:09 -0600
Message-ID: <71D53DD94578D41185E100805FBBF1A912E048@EXCHANGE.LF_DOMAIN>
To: "'Welsh, Linda B'" <linda@intel.com>, "'Rob McDougall'" <RMcDouga@JetForm.com>, "'tvraman@almaden.ibm.com'" <tvraman@almaden.ibm.com>, Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>
Cc: "'gilescope@yahoo.co.uk'" <gilescope@yahoo.co.uk>, "'www-forms@w3.org'" <www-forms@w3.org>
I hear the same echo, Linda. I am a hand coder (like most of you I am sure)
and I do know how difficult it can be to learn one way and then re-learn
another 2 months later. Think about the future people. What are we going to
be doing tomorrow or in a year or even a decade? We don't know but we can
work toward an answer. 

Keeping it simple is the main objective. Making it reusable with future
innovations can be a different story all together and it will be if everyone
continues to bicker over long and short versions or anything. Make it long
or make it short. Just make it easy to understand for those who haven't been
developing for a lifetime.

-----Original Message-----
From: Welsh, Linda B [mailto:linda@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 4:58 PM
To: 'Rob McDougall'; 'tvraman@almaden.ibm.com'; Micah Dubinko
Cc: 'gilescope@yahoo.co.uk'; 'www-forms@w3.org'
Subject: RE: Review of XForms working draft

I think Raman's point is that if we stuck w/ the schema names, people would
know EXACTLY what they mean, and not prejudge, one way or another.

And his other point, are we really making it "simpler" for simple syntax
hand coders (and losing a feature in the bargain)? We're talking about not
having to type a few more characters. The schema names avoid any ambiguity.

Linda Bucsay Welsh <mailto:linda@intel.com>
Web Standards & Architecture Team (WSAT)
Intel Architecture Labs
503.264.4987 - Desk
503.799.7091 - Cell
503.264.3375 - Fax 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rob McDougall [mailto:RMcDouga@JetForm.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 12:10 PM
>To: 'tvraman@almaden.ibm.com'; Micah Dubinko
>Cc: 'gilescope@yahoo.co.uk'; 'www-forms@w3.org'
>Subject: RE: Review of XForms working draft
>Hmm, the fact that this editorial mistake was self-evident to someone
>outside the working group indicates to me that the max 
>attribute itself is
>in fact simple and self-evident.
>It's interesting how one's predispositions can influence one's 
>isn't it?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: T. V. Raman [mailto:tvraman@almaden.ibm.com]
>Sent: January 2, 2001 1:37 PM
>To: Micah Dubinko
>Cc: 'gilescope@yahoo.co.uk'; 'www-forms@w3.org'
>Subject: RE: Review of XForms working draft
>On 1: I would strongly advocate against our continuing to
>cook up our abbreviated versions of max-inclusive and
>I believed this at the FTF --the review comments only
>strengthen this belief.
>We might well feel that max-inclusive etc are "too cmplex"
>according to some as yet undefined complexity measure;
>however we are not making things simpler by adding quirks of
>our own that appear "simpler" to us --the rest of the world
> will just remain confused.
>>>>>> "Micah" == Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com> writes:
>    Micah> Giles, Thanks for your time and feedback.
>    Micah> on 1) - I believe you are correct. Is this
>    Micah> confusing enough that we should consider just
>    Micah> leaving the inclusive/exclusive versions and skip
>    Micah> the abbreviated one alltogether?
>    Micah> on 2) - I like this idea. We will consider
>    Micah> something along these lines for our ongoing
>    Micah> research with the XForms Processing Model.
>    Micah> Thanks!
>    Micah> Micah Dubinko Co-editor, W3C XForms Working Group
>    Micah> -----Original Message----- From: Giles Cope
>    Micah> [mailto:gec@hyperoffice.com] Sent: Tuesday,
>    Micah> January 02, 2001 4:37 AM To: www-forms@w3.org
>    Micah> Subject: Review of XForms working draft
>    Micah> 1. 'max' for Number should be short for
>    Micah> maxInclusive not maxExclusive (and 'min'
>    Micah> respectivly).
>    Micah> 2. In 9.4: We do need a syntax to work on
>    Micah> multiple models but,
>    Micah> 	<xfm:textbox
>    Micah> ref="instance::b/orderForm/shipTo/firstName">
>    Micah>    but we loose the idea of the current context
>    Micah> using this syntax, and have to specify everything
>    Micah> from the root.
>    Micah>    We need something like:
>    Micah> 	<xfm:textbox
>    Micah> ref="instance::b./shipTo/firstName">
>    Micah>    but obviously with better syntax. Maybe we
>    Micah> could select the current context in the binding
>    Micah> element:
>    Micah> 	<xfm:bind> <xfm:select="orderForm/shipTo/">
>    Micah> <xfm:bind id="myfirstname" ref="firstName""/>
>    Micah> <xfm:bind id="myaddresszip" ref="address/zip"/>
>    Micah> </xfm:select> </xfm:bind>
>    Micah> my two cents, gilescope@yahoo.co.uk
>    Micah> ----------------------------------------------------------
>    Micah> "My sole reply," said he, "to that demand Is
>    Micah> action; when a fit request is made Silence and
>    Micah> deeds should follow out of hand."  -- Virgil
>    Micah> [Canto XXIV, 76]
>Best Regards,
>IBM Research: Human Language Technologies
>Phone:        1 (408) 927 2608
>Fax:        1 (408) 927 3012
>Email:        tvraman@us.ibm.com
>WWW:      http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/raman
>PGP:          http://cs.cornell.edu/home/raman/raman.asc 
>Snail:        IBM Almaden Research Center,
>              650 Harry Road
>              San Jose 95120
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2001 18:18:13 UTC

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