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

Re: Non-browser compliance

From: Berin Loritsch <bloritsch@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 10:46:02 -0500
Message-ID: <3BEAA8BA.9D44F9D9@apache.org>
To: "David E. Cleary" <davec@progress.com>
CC: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>, "'Jim Wissner'" <jim@jbrix.org>, www-forms@w3.org
"David E. Cleary" wrote:
> 
> > Could you provide a "best-case-scenario" for how XForms (and XForm
> > conformance) could be specified to allow both innovative
> > applications (like
> > yours) and regular browsers to be conforming and interoperable
> > (and not just
> > in words, but in practice)?
> 
> My view is that there should be a reference model that exercises most if not
> all of the functionality. This would then be bound to any UI through binding
> attributes. Conformance would be acheived through posting and validation of
> a completed form.
> 
> I have no clue of automating this type of conformance test.

You can't automate it because it's functionality and presentation relies
completely in the container markup.  Let's face it, XHTML can alter the
XForms intent and function.  There's a little tag called <script/>....
XForms would be so much more usable and testable if the contracts were
stronger.

If XForms supplied it's _own_ container markup, then a test-suite can easily
iterate through the XForms markup and perform all testing.  Otherwise, the
test-suite must have knowledge of the container markup--and have the added
complexity of plugging in different markup types.

Besides, another big issue is if I wanted to generate a Java UI from an
XForms document--there is no container markup for that!  I have to manufacture
my own, and hope other people will use it.

-- 

"Those who would trade liberty for
 temporary security deserve neither"
                - Benjamin Franklin
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2001 10:44:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:21:50 GMT