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

Re: [Moderator Action] XForms WD 20020821 3.3.1 Referencing Schemas - Catch 22?

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 18:16:06 +0200
Message-ID: <15e701c25365$34be6350$228a608a@inria.fr>
To: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>, <www-forms@w3.org>, <www-forms-editor@w3.org>

Moderator: sent to www-forms@w3.org and www-forms-editor@w3.org
----- Original Message -----
From: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>
To: <www-forms@w3.org>; <www-forms-editor@w3.org>; <xforms@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 6:26 PM
Subject: [Moderator Action] XForms WD 20020821 3.3.1 Referencing Schemas -
Catch 22?

> I note that in 3.3.1 the WG seeks feedback on implementation of the schema
> attribute. I would suggest that there is another step necessary before
> worthwhile feedback can be provided - the WG needs to more clearly define
> what the schema attribute is intended to do.
> 3.3.1 mentions a URI fragment such as "#mySchema" without defining the
> semantics of the syntax. Is it a reference to an HTML/XHTML anchor?
> Presumably not - this is supposedly a cross-platform XML technology.
> So is it a "bare names" XPointer? We are not told.
> But a bare names XPointer is a shorthand for access to an XML element's id
> attribute and here we run into potential trouble.
> Chapter 3.2.1 seems to imply that it is the host language, not XForms,
> adds an id attribute to the XForms elements.
> So, unless I am misunderstanding all this (which is quite possible), the
> seems to expect a bare names XPointer to reference an id attribute which
> (yet to be) provided by the host language.
> Since the host language is not obliged to add an id attribute to the
> xforms:schema element which corresponds to the schema attribute of the
> xforms:model element there seems to be a Catch 22. The schema attribute
> likely be referencing a non-matching id attribute on an xforms:schema
> element.
> If I have this all upside down the explanation in the WD needs to be
> improved. If I have it the right way up I would suggest that some design
> points need to be re-thought.
> Andrew Watt
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 12:16:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:36:07 UTC