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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:36:17 UTC