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

Re: [Moderator Action] 7.8.1 - property() function - conformance-level

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 18:04:20 +0200
Message-ID: <140301c25363$9081ab40$228a608a@inria.fr>
To: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>, <xforms@yahoogroups.com>, <www-forms@w3.org>

Moderator: sent to www-forms@w3.org and www-forms-editor@w3.org
----- Original Message -----
From: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>
To: <xforms@yahoogroups.com>; <www-forms@w3.org>; <www-forms-editor@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 10:38 AM
Subject: [Moderator Action] 7.8.1 - property() function - conformance-level


>
>
>
> It seems to me that there may a design inadequacy in or related to 7.8.1.
>
> If I am interpreting it correctly the conformance-level property relates
to
> the XForms processor.
>
> What mechanism is provided, here or elsewhere in the specification, to
> support/define the scenario where an XForms Basic processor is served an
> XForms Full document?
>
> It seems to me that it may be possible for an XForms Basic processor to be
> served an XForms document which it cannot process, for example a document
> which uses unsupported XPath 1.0 axes. Is that correct?
>
> In which case, what behaviour should the XForms Basic processor produce?
>
> Is there, in fact, any mechanism for an "XForms document" to signal which
> level of conformance it claims?
>
> If my concerns here are well-founded it seems to raise significant
questions
> about the suitability of the current XForms draft as a cross-platform
forms
> solution.
>
> Andrew Watt
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 12:04:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:21:52 GMT