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

RE: XForms:instance requests, the HTTP Accept header and RESTful Web Services...

From: Philip Fennell <Philip.Fennell@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:17:18 +0100
Message-ID: <FBFAE0E0B37B4148AF77509764D4BC20031925F8@bbcxues11.national.core.bbc.co.uk>
To: <www-forms@w3.org>

I agree with Leigh that XForms implementations should be using an Accept
header that more acurately reflects what they can 'accept' but still
allowing a fall back for less savy servers that is caught by client-side
validation if an inappropriate representation is served-up.

> application/xml;q=0.9,text/xml;q=0.7,*/*;q=0.5

I'd much rather see the current XForms implementations do the 'right
thing' with the Accept header now, and then see XForms extended in the
near future to allow greater flexibility through John's submission
attribute on the instance element.

 

Regards

Philip Fennell
>XSLT Developer (Content Management Culture)
>
>BBC Future Media & Technology
>Media Village, 201 Wood Lane London W12 7TP
>BC4 C4, Broadcast Centre
>
>T:     0208 0085318
>


 

________________________________

From: Klotz, Leigh [mailto:Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com] 
Sent: 24 October 2007 22:52
To: John Boyer
Cc: Lars Oppermann; Philip Fennell; www-forms@w3.org
Subject: RE: XForms:instance requests, the HTTP Accept header and
RESTful Web Services...


If instance/@src is not prepared to handle anything but XML it should
not be using 
  Accept:
text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plai
n;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
and should omit explicit mention of non-XML types:
  Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml;q=0.9;*;q=0.5
and given the mediatypes specified in the XForms rec, I would argue
something like this:
Accept: application/xml;q=0.9,text/xml;q=0.7,*/*;q=0.5
 
In other words, clearly prefer application/xml to text/xml, but let
everything else fall under */*.
Until we get content headers for instance/@src there's no point in
explicitly requesting any application/*+xml for an instance.
Why not application/svg+xml?
 
I agree of course that submission is different.

Leigh.


________________________________

From: John Boyer [mailto:boyerj@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 4:52 PM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Lars Oppermann; Philip Fennell; www-forms@w3.org
Subject: RE: XForms:instance requests, the HTTP Accept header and
RESTful Web Services...



Well, shouldn't it instead just be setting a higher quality rating on
accepting XML content, but not exclude html? 

This would allow the bulk of systems to continue serving out well-formed
XML as text/html content.  The XForms processor is OK here because it
will just generate a parse exception if the form hits a system that
serves out tag soup.  The form author writes the src attribute and there
is no xpath override, so it seems reasonable to put the onus on the form
author to src reference content that is in fact well-formed XML. 

Cheers, 
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com  

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer> 





"Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com> 

10/23/2007 04:14 PM 

	
To
	"Lars Oppermann" <Lars.Oppermann@Sun.COM>, John
Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA 
cc
	"Philip Fennell" <Philip.Fennell@bbc.co.uk>, <www-forms@w3.org> 
Subject
	RE: XForms:instance requests,  the HTTP Accept header and
RESTful Web Services...	

		




I still think it's wrong that Mozilla Firefox XForms extension is saying
it accepts text/html for instance/@src. 

-----Original Message-----
From: www-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org
<mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org> ] On
Behalf Of Lars Oppermann
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 2:26 AM
To: John Boyer
Cc: Philip Fennell; www-forms@w3.org
Subject: Re: XForms:instance requests, the HTTP Accept header and
RESTful Web Services...


John,

This seems like a really good solution, as it avoids the duplicating of 
submission functionality into the instance element which I was worried 
about. It also shows how submission is somewhat of a high-level wrapper 
for an XmlHttpRequest object which isn't explicitly tied to the HTTP 
protocol...

/Lars

John Boyer wrote:
> <submission id="S" replace="instance" instance="X" resource="URL" 
> serialization="none" ...>
>     <header> ... set up accept header here ...</header>
> </submission>
> 
> In the future, the following
> 
> <instance submission="S"/>




http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
					
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 08:17:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:11 GMT