W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > September 2010

Re: base64 encoding for HTTP Basic Authentication - a gap in the XForms function library? (RFE)

From: Ronald van Kuijk <rvkuijk@intercommit.nl>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:22:13 +0200
To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, "Erik Bruchez" <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, www-forms@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100914002213.d6e841d1@mail.intercommit.nl>
----- Original Message -----
From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [mailto:cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com]
To: Erik Bruchez [mailto:ebruchez@orbeon.com]
Cc: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [mailto:cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com], www-forms@w3.org
Sent: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:08:51 +0200
Subject: Re: base64 encoding for HTTP Basic Authentication - a gap in the  XForms function library? (RFE)


> 
> On 12 Sep 2010, at 20:08 , Erik Bruchez wrote:
> 
> > I would agree with both:
> >
> > * Higher-level support is in general desirable to make the form
> > author's life easier.
> 
> As a would-be form author, I can only say hear, hear!  I would
> very much like my life to be made easier!
> 

And we are all willing to help. This kind of feedback is valuable (imo)

> But I hope the long-term goal of making the form author's life
> easier doesn't get in the way of providing the tools necessary to
> allow a certain amount of self-help in the meantime.  I'd rather
> solve my problem by using xf:header elements than by writing
> new Java code for my task, if I possibly can!
>

You don't have to. For Orbeon Erik or one of the other dev's did this. For betterFORM I'll be the one to do this for you. 

Again, this kind of feedback about what is missing in the implementation in the eye of  'would be form authors' ;-)
 
Cheers,

Ronald van Kuijk
Received on Monday, 13 September 2010 22:22:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:21 GMT