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

RE: Review of XForms working draft

From: Barbara Samson <bsamson@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 15:48:27 -0800
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010102153056.00b36808@MIRA-SJC5-1.cisco.com>
To: "'www-forms@w3.org'" <www-forms@w3.org>
I would like to see XForms stick to Schema names for consistency. If 
abbreviations are beneficial, then Schema should be using them. Until then, 
let's all use the same names.

Barbara Samson
Cisco Systems

At 02:57 PM 1/2/2001 -0800, Welsh, Linda B wrote:
>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
> >conclusions,
> >isn't it?
> >
> >Rob
> >
> >-----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
> >friends.
> >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,
> >--raman
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >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 18:48:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:21:48 GMT