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

RE: multiple datatypes on a single bound node

From: Francisco Monteiro <monterro2004@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:55:06 +0100
To: "'Klotz, Leigh'" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>, "'Aaron Reed'" <aaronr@us.ibm.com>, <www-forms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004e01c6d324$7b747170$0500a8c0@computername>

facileXForms only supports type under MIP rules.

Kind Regards

facileXForms - Really AJAX at heart

-----Original Message-----
From: www-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Klotz, Leigh
Sent: 07 September 2006 21:46
To: Aaron Reed; www-forms@w3.org
Subject: RE: multiple datatypes on a single bound node

We discussed this issue in this week's XForms Working Group teleconference,
and I am reporting the group's consensus and surrounding discussion.

As you suspected, the results are up to the implementation.  We decided that
there are no errata necessary for this response.

There was some sentiment that precedence order is the wrong pattern to
follow, and open combination may be more appropriate.  Thus, an XForms
processors might choose to satisfy multiple type constraints with a
particular presentation chosen by the combination, and the working group
decided to leave open the freedom to do that.

The WG invites XForms processor implementers and users to respond to this
message with use cases and current implementation practice, in order to
stimulate discussion for possible future enhancements.

Thank you,

-----Original Message-----
From: www-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Aaron Reed
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:57 PM
To: www-forms@w3.org
Subject: multiple datatypes on a single bound node

Hi all,

I saw a discussion thread back in April about whether there is a precedence
order for a situation when a bound instance node has more than one type
applied to it (schema type, a xsi:type and a type MIP). 
And I assume that the errata (#10) in the second edition of the spec arose
out of that discussion, so now we know how to handle validation in

that situation.

But one point was raised in the discussion thread that I didn't see a clear
answer for.  Consider this scenario...I have a xsi:type="integer" 
on an instance data node, a type="xsd:date" MIP applying to the same node
and a xf:input is bound to that node.  According to the errata, I know to
mark the node as invalid since it doesn't validate according to all of the
types applied to the node.  But I don't know what control to bind to the
instance data.  Do I bind my control based off of the integer type or the
date type?

I can see where the WG (and thus the spec) might want to stay mum on this
subject since binding a particular control based on type is implementation
specific, but I was wondering if any consensus has been reached by
implementors?  This is something that I'd think we'd want to agree on since
instance replacement, for example, could have a dramatically different
visual result on two different processors if one went one way and one goes
the other.

Any thoughts appreciated.


Received on Friday, 8 September 2006 08:55:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:36:18 UTC