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

Re: Because type is for datatype, there should not be a problem for XForms Basic

From: Allan Beaufour <beaufour@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:45:53 +0200
Message-ID: <90d6cb0e0605050345n29d32d6dxa8f69dbe26800d47@mail.gmail.com>
To: "John Boyer" <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: www-forms@w3.org

On 5/4/06, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> Because others may not want to go fishing for that email, I'll explain again: I asked what other
> implementers were doing when a form author attempts to assign a non-datatype using the
> XForms type MIP.  You responded that you didn't understand the question because a datatype
> can be simple or complex and then asked what was missing...
> The issue is that the notion of datatype is clearly defined in XML schema to be a validation
> of character string content.
> The datatype of string content could come from a simple type or from a complex type.
> The part I believe you were missing from my last post was that I did not make note to the
> reader of the fact that complex types can exist for more than one reason.  Some complex
> types still only assign simple content to the elements they describe.  These are elements
> that have no element children (this includes mixed content, of course).

I missed something, I agree :) What I missed is this:
"Description: associates a Schema datatype."
and the definition of "datatype":
and somebody to clearly spell out "datatype" to me. I missed that,
again and again. I've read "type" all the time, especially because of
that "xsi:type" equality sentence.

> I asked what others are doing partly to raise awareness of what the spec actually says about
> the type MIP because I've heard a lot of comments recently that caused me to believe that
> at least some folks believed that the type MIP could be used to assign a structural complex
> type, so I've asked the working group members and implementers to have a look at this issue.

With _the current specification_, it's an implementation issue,
because the spec. contradicts itself imho. You focus on the
"description" line, I focus on the "equality with xsi:type". Until we
have a resolution fixing this somehow, I would say both approaches are
just as valid -- or invalid :)

... Allan
Received on Friday, 5 May 2006 10:46:06 UTC

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