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

RE: id() function and schema types

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:44:26 +0100
To: <www-forms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <013a01c66afc$2e715540$0e01a8c0@Jan>

Wise words Leigh...true at any time, in any discussion, on any list...but
I'm missing their specific relevance here. :)

Can you clarify? My guess is that there is a misunderstanding about my
original post, but it may not be.

Thanks,

Mark 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klotz, Leigh [mailto:Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com] 
> Sent: 28 April 2006 19:38
> To: Mark Birbeck; www-forms@w3.org
> Subject: RE: id() function and schema types
> 
> Mark,
> 
> Let's be sure to consider the form authors first, not the 
> implementors first.  
> 
> Leigh. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-forms-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Birbeck
> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:55 AM
> To: www-forms@w3.org
> Subject: RE: id() function and schema types
> 
> ...
> 
> However, with XPath 1.0 this won't work since the id()-like 
> function needs access to the XForms data structures to get 
> the MIP types.
> Therefore, unless you want to pollute your XPath evaluator 
> with 'knowledge' of XForms, you'd need to implement the 
> id()-like function over on the *XForms processor* and make a 
> call to it from the XPath evaluator. The XPath evaluator 
> doesn't care what the id()-like function does internally, as 
> long as it gives back some nodes.
> 
> Hence my preference for changing the name so that the XPath 
> function and this one are kept separate.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 28 April 2006 19:45:59 GMT

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