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

Re: The message action is for messages, not arbitrary dialogs

From: Ulrich Nicolas Lissé <unlisse@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:31:59 +0100
Message-ID: <da289f40612110531r5800b9c7mfaa567c435f19405@mail.gmail.com>
To: "John Boyer" <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: "Elliotte Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, ebruchez@orbeon.com, www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-request@w3.org

John,

I agree completely. A message is a message is a message. However, when
the XForms 1.0 xf:message content model will be included in XForms 1.1
unchanged, things are getting ugly: You can then have XForms markup
within xf:message piggy-backed via the host language because of
XForms' 1.1 chameleon schema feature. One compelling reason more for
me to opt against chameleon madness.

Regards,
Uli.

On 12/8/06, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Elliotte,
>
> I should start by saying that, having heard you speak at the XML conference, this response is not entirely directed to you.
>
> Still, it is quite difficult to imagine a scenario in which 'message' might legitimately be used in place of 'dialog' and the many examples you cited are witnesses to that assertion.
>
> This keeps happening because of the definition of the word message.  A message is one-sided.  A dialog would be composed of two or more messages.  Like, you sent a message, and now I'm sending a message.  The two together are a dialog.
>
> But the most telling is the definition of message that actually appears in XForms recommendation.  It is defined to *display* a message *to* a user.  There is nothing *from* the user that comes back to XForms.
>
> The content model is defined to be char data and XForms *output*.  The spec then allows host language content to be added to message, which is *not* the same as saying more *XForms* controls can be added to the message content model.  The host language additions are not intended to violate the given definition but rather in support of it to allow decoration of the message.
>
> Should some example happen to arise where message is (mis)used to mean dialog, that doesn't mean we should accept that as proper usage in XForms.
>
> Cheers,
> John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
> STSM: Workplace Forms Architect and Researcher
> Co-Chair, W3C Forms 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
>
>
>
>
>
> Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
> Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org
>
> 12/07/2006 07:46 AM
>
> Toebruchez@orbeon.com
>
> ccwww-forms@w3.org
>
> SubjectRe: The message action is for messages, not arbitrary dialogs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Erik Bruchez wrote:
>
> > o I like explicit over implicit. If you say "message", you mean
> >   message. I don't know of any user interface framework that uses the
> >   term "message" to also mean "dialog".
> >
>
> Google MessageBox. .NET, SWT, and ASP.NET all use this term instead of
> DialogBox. Possibly they think of MessageBox as a restricted form of
> DialogBox just for messages; i.e. an alert. I'm not sure, but certainly
> the word message is sometimes used in place of the word dialog.
>
> --
> Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@metalab.unc.edu
> Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
> http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2006 04:45:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:08 GMT