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: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:34:05 -0700
To: "Allan Beaufour" <beaufour@gmail.com>
Cc: www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF16D66D37.C1EBB189-ON8825715C.0073F9A3-8825715C.00767A3D@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Allan,

Sorry, the problem was that I only read Erik's email, and there were so 
many arrows next to the content, that 
I was not sure if it was attributable to you or if you were responding to 
someone else.
Due to the late hour (for me), I did not feel inclined to chase down that 
detail because I didn't think it 
would be too offensive not to know exactly who said it.

On the separate note regarding your statement to me that "It is _your_ 
mail that brings the 
subject back to only concerning the @action." 

I would say that this is not at all true.  The focus for XForms 1.1 has 
always been on the requirement to
solve the problem of providing dynamic action for XForms submission. 
Adding AVTs for their own
sake is not a requirement, but rather a solution that happens to satisfy 
the above requirement.

Another solution that satisfies the requirement employs event context 
information.

The AVT idea is another second implementation that could fulfill the 
requirement.  The problem is that
we have previously decided not to add AVTs generally to XForms 1.1 but 
rather to consider doing so
for a future version of XForms.  So, adding the AVT in one place now 
usurps the whole discussion of
whether we will even add AVTs in that future version as it could turn out 
to be a bad idea.  I don't know 
because we haven't fully discussed it.

If we add it now, the assumption is that we will expand on that in the 
future.
It also means that in 1.1 we would have to tell people to use an AVT, but 
it only works in one attribute.

So, of course, all working group members can continue to discuss AVTs as 
much as is desired, except 
that it means there are less valuable cycles being spent on the action 
items related to the more timely 
delivery of XForms 1.1.

For my own part, I generally like AVTs as long as we can work out all the 
details, and they are many.
And hopefully those who think of XForms as an enemy of CSS rather than the 
friend it clearly is will not
get more confused by the introduction of such a clearly XSLT-esque 
feature.

John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
Senior Product Architect/Research Scientist
Co-Chair, W3C XForms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com  http://www.ibm.com/software/

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





"Allan Beaufour" <beaufour@gmail.com> 
Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org
04/26/2006 04:07 AM

To
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
cc
www-forms@w3.org
Subject
Re: Support for AVTs in XForms? [WAS: Dynamic @action attribute on 
xforms:submission]







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 21:34:16 GMT

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