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

Re[2]: Nodeset bug and nested setvalue in a repeat. (2 of 2)

From: Ivan Latysh <IvanLatysh@yahoo.ca>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:34:42 -0400
Message-ID: <1553799342.20070413203442@yourmail.com>
To: www-forms@w3.org

Hello Peter,

Friday, April 13, 2007, 7:46:03 PM, you wrote:

> Thanks Ivan for the comments.
> The issue with this one is that the 1.0 spec for XForms is a published
> specification.
> I have close to 150 forms in production with many clients that use the
> setvalue in repeats, and outside of repeats.  All of them are using the
> 1.0 rule.  Across all of the other adopters of XForms there are probably
> several thousand forms so changing the rules is not an option.  Anything
> has to add-to the spec, not change it.  There is room for clarification
> where the spec is ambiguous but in this case I don't think it is.
As you just proved my point - it is still manageable.
This issues is fundamental issue and all actions and components has to be
updated with clear definition of the context/scope.

Covering it up, will bring dozen maybe hundreds more severe issues, as soon
XForms began adopting more widely. And you will see how forked XForms projects
start popping up as a mushrooms after the rainy day. There are enough powerful
developers that will not tolerate flaws in the specs, they will choose their own path.
So it is the right thing to do to fix it while it is manageable.

If you still belive that I am wrong let's see is there are any use cases that
won't work after spec changed ?
D.u. have any examples that will fail ?

-- 
Best regards,
 Ivan                            mailto:IvanLatysh@yahoo.ca
Received on Saturday, 14 April 2007 00:40:12 GMT

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