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

RE: url params et al

From: Francisco Monteiro <monterro2004@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:11:25 +0100
To: "'John Boyer'" <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>, "'Klotz, Leigh'" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
Cc: "'T.V Raman'" <raman@google.com>, <www-forms@w3.org>, <www-forms-request@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002101c6c871$e18b4be0$0500a8c0@computername>
 
John,
 
I will put some examples of how we have used Vat's.
 
Regards
Francisco

  _____  

From: www-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of John Boyer
Sent: 25 August 2006 18:47
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Francisco Monteiro; T.V Raman; www-forms@w3.org;
www-forms-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: url params et al



That's good. One of the questions I felt we needed someone to research
before going with AVTs was the question of iteration, i.e. if the result
contains braces, do you reevaluate?  Seems like one could create all kinds
of Lisp-like constructs if so, but despite that was a minefield of
complexity I was hoping we could avoid.  Based on not even being able to
nest them, I would say that iteration is out. 

That still leaves lots of process questions regarding their general
availability.  We do need experience over time with the feature because the
common use cases are unlikely to break (which explains why "no one seems to
be having a problem with them").  Aside from the spec work we would need in
the form of schema changes, it would be very helpful to have an explanation
of why AVTs would pose no problem when use in the attributes of a bind
element, like nodeset or calculate, for example. Would they be problematic
when used in single node binding, nodeset binding attributes, and the
special attributes of each element?   

A good example would be upload with a filename child element.  If upload or
filename ref contains an AVT that is dependent somehow on a change that
would be made by the other element, , what happens?   

Based on these, I'm sure there are issues that must be worked out through
full analysis of the language that may take a while to come up otherwise.
It may not take tons of time to do the analysis, we just need someone to do
it because it's not really a feature but rather an enhancement to pretty
much all the features of the language. 

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





"Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com> 
Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org 


08/25/2006 09:42 AM 


To
"T.V Raman" <raman@google.com> 

cc
<www-forms@w3.org>, "Francisco Monteiro" <monterro2004@tiscali.co.uk> 

Subject
RE: url params et al

	





I looked at XSLT 2.0 in Michael Kay's book, and the the decision critera
for where AVTs work in XSLT 2.0.
As I remember it, the decision critera were as follows:
- attributes must be specifically identified
- must not be of type IDREF
- must not not be XPath expressions

For the full text, which is about a page, please see ISBN: 0-7645-6909-0

Also, rather than using a first-nodeset rule, they use concatenation
with a single space between, though if you set compatibility mode to
XSLT 1.0, they use a single node.  

AVTs cannot be nested, but Kay's book  gives an example using concat of
how to achieve certain desired effects.

There also appears to be some hair associated with call-template, as
Kay's Saxon processor provides a saxon:allow-avt attribute as an
extension.
(Reference page http://saxon.sourceforge.net/saxon7.3/changes.html).






Received on Friday, 25 August 2006 18:11:44 GMT

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