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

Re: XForms and APP clients

From: Dustin Whitney <dustin.whitney@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 15:40:52 -0600
Message-ID: <23def8000705301440v6764416eua34da266fbc89a4c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Nikunj Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Cc: "Atom-Protocol Protocol" <atom-protocol@imc.org>, www-forms@w3.org, "Elliotte Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
I've experience similar problems, not in implementing APP, but in wishing
that xs:complexContent were supported.

-Dustin

On 5/30/07, Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> Elliotte Harold wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone yet written or started work on an XForms client for APP? I
> > googled but didn't find anything. If the space is open I may take a
> > crack at it myself.
> >
> > I think XForms 1.1 would be required since XForms 1.0 does not support
> > PUT and DELETE.
> >
> Apart from the challenges introduced by the event + form model (which by
> the way simplify many things in the end), a limitation I find with
> XForms in its proposed incarnation (1.1) is that the XForms model is
> quite closed ended when it comes to content. It chooses xs:simpleContent
> as the basis for producing and displaying form instances.
>
> A major consequence is that rendering atom:link as xhtml:link is not
> going to be supported in the proposed revision. Another consequence is
> that the various content models in atom such as atom:title,
> atom:summary, atom:content, etc. cannot be rendered meaningfully if
> their contents are anything other than text.
>
> I was very hopeful today when I started investigating creating a simple
> browser + XForms based APP client, but quickly realized that without
> support for xs:complexContent, I would end up working around the
> standard that I might as well wait for the issues to be resolved in the
> Forms WG.
>
> Anyone have more positive experience with XForms for APP? I'd surely
> love to know.
>
> ....Nikunj
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 21:41:00 GMT

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