W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > September 2002

Re: src attribute on xforms:instance - link or inclusion?

From: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 06:31:34 EDT
Message-ID: <a1.2cd1fb6e.2aa49806@aol.com>
To: steven.pemberton@cwi.nl, xforms@yahoogroups.com, www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-editor@w3.org, w3c-forms@w3.org
I had asked:

> > In thinking further about the src attribute on xforms:instance I wonder
> > whether this is not a "link" but rather should be an include.

Steven Pemberton replied (somewhat snipped):

> XInclude is not a REC by the way. It is only at CR at the moment.

Correction accepted.

> worse, it normatively references an out-of-date XPointer. We are not even
> allowed to normatively refer to a specification more than one step behind
> us. But that notwithstanding, XInclude would be rather heavyweight for the
> role it would have to play, and would be a tough requirement for handheld
> devices.

Surely the first question to address here is whether or not what is being 
done is an include or a link?

I notice you don't address that question.

If the process is an include rather than a link don't you agree that 
expressing it as a link is a little bit of a kludge?

> (And by the way, XInclude has an href attribute which is also not an
> xlink:href, so what would be the win from your point of view? And if it's 
> OK
> for them, why is it not OK for XForms?)

Well, if my suggestion is correct, that the process may be an include not a 
link then there would be no reason to think of XLink in this context.

I appreciate that your responses, at this stage, are informal but I would be 
interested to know if you consider that this is genuinely a "link" with 
"embed". If it's not then might it not be sensible to revisit the issue?


Andrew Watt
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 06:32:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:36:06 UTC