W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Support for AVTs in XForms? [WAS: Dynamic @action attribute on xforms:submission]

From: Allan Beaufour <beaufour@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:07:43 +0200
Message-ID: <90d6cb0e0604260407x79821088jbb2cde61f75a5e25@mail.gmail.com>
To: "John Boyer" <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: www-forms@w3.org

On 4/26/06, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> Someone on this thread attributed to me the following:
>
> >>John mentions that it "keeps coming up over and over and over again.",
>
> and then responded:
>
> >> and I think there is a reason. People want to use it...
>
> That person misinterpreted the word "it".

That "someone" and "person" is me. Why not write that?

>   By "it", I meant that dynamic action attribute comes up over and over again.

I've looked at your mail again, and I think that was a fair
interpretation. Wrong, obviously, and I am sorry if I misquoted you,
but imho with tofu, chances are high for that.

> *Then* the discussion of AVTs comes up.
> **Then** we remember why AVTs are a Pandora's box.
> ***Then*** we discuss using event context.
> ****Then**** we forget we had the discussion.

Who is "we"? I have a different view of the timeline that _you_ present.

I actually started a new thread to distinguish between 1) the use of
pro/cons of AVTs in general and 2) specifically AVTs for @action. I
see a good and healthy discussion of using AVTs between Joern and
Erik. Issues of using AVTs in general, but also for @action
(naturally). It is _your_ mail that brings the subject back to only
concerning the @action.

You point out that there are issues that needs to be solved for AVTs.
Yes, correct. That is exactly why we should discuss it here.

--
... Allan
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2006 11:07:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:03 GMT