W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > April 2007

XForms 1.1 WD last call comments from CDF WG

From: Kevin E Kelly <Kevin.Kelly@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:10:04 -0400
To: www-forms-editor@w3.org, www-forms@w3.org
Cc: member-cdf@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD01077A3.1DB69A2E-ON852572B4.00523CEE-852572B4.005351BA@us.ibm.com>


XForms WG,

Please find the seven comments below from the CDF WG for the XForms 1.1
Working Draft last call dated 22 Feb 2007..

Kevin
On behalf of the CDF WG

--------------------------------------------------------------

CDF01 - Abstract text moved to Introduction
Move the current abstract text to Section 2 Introduction to XForms, and add
appropriate abstract text stating what the document is in the abstract
section.
Rationale: http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Abstract, the current abstract
text is really an introduction to XForms.


CDF02 - Abstract (moved to Introduction) missing reference to compound
documents.
Change
"XForms is not a free-standing document type, but is intended to be
integrated into other markup languages, "
To
"XForms is not a free-standing document type, but is intended to be
integrated into other markup languages as a compound document [see CDRF 1.0
]. "
Add to Appendix B References
"CDRF 1.0
      Compound Document by Reference Framework 1.0, Timur Mehrvarz, Lasse
Pajunen, Julien Quint, Daniel Applequist,
2007, W3C Working Draft available at http://www.w3.org/TR/CDR/"
Rationale: Compound Document is the W3C term for a document that combines
multiple formats.


CDF03 - Abstract (Moved to Introduction) missing reference to ODF.
Change
"such as XHTML or SVG. "
To
"such as XHTML, ODF [see ODF 1.1], or SVG. "
Add to references
"ODF 1.1
      Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.1,
Patrick Durusau, Micheal Brauer, Lars Oppermann, 2007, available at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office#odf11
Rationale: No where in the XForms 1.1 does it state that XForms must be
included in whole.  ODF uses some XForms elements and is an open standard
so it should be acknowledged as a non-W3C example of using XForms as a
compound document.


CDF04 - 3.3 The XForms Core Module missing reference to compound document
profile.
Change
"Note that the presence of foreign namespaced elements is subject to the
definition of the containing document profile. "
To
"Note that the presence of foreign namespaced elements is subject to the
definition of the containing or compound document profile. "
Rationale: Provides clarification for compound document profiles.


CDF05 - 3.5 The XForms Extension Model missing compound document profile as
an alternative.
Change
"There are many different ways a host language might include XForms. One
approach uses only well-formed processing, disregarding validation. Another
case uses strict validation, for example XHTML 1.0, in which only
predefined elements are allowed. Another common approach is to allow
unregulated content in a few selected places. A host language that chooses
this option can use the Extension module. "
To
"There are many different ways a host language might include XForms. One
approach uses only well-formed processing, disregarding validation. Another
case uses strict validation, for example XHTML 1.0, in which only
predefined elements are allowed. A Compound Document by Inclusion profile
can also be used to define the behavior and processing and mixed markup
documents.  Another common approach is to allow unregulated content in a
few selected places. A host language that chooses this option can use the
Extension module. "
Rational: Define a compound document as an option.


CDF06 - 13 Glossary of Terms missing compound document.
Add
"Compound Document
      [Definition: A [CDRF 1.0] Compound Document is a document that
      combines mutliple document formats either by reference, by inclusion
      or both.]"


CDF07 - mustUnderstand module not defined well enough, recommend removing.
Delete
Rationale: The CDF WG feels that this module should be removed.
Here are some of the issues with mustUnderstand:
  - When does it get evaluated?  Must it be handled prior to xforms-ready
or say if it's in a switch/case, only when the case is activated?
  - Can mustUnderstand be manipulated by script? If nodes are dynamically
added to layout but conflicts with mustUnderstand, what error should occur?
Perhaps a better fallback mechanism should be used.  We.d recommend to seek
feedback or give requirements to the CDF WG, as we are currently dealing
with such issues around mixing namespace documents, content identification,
content negotiation and fallback handling of unknown content.
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2007 15:21:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:09 GMT