Re: Automatic Entry and Forms

Adam Jack (
Mon, 26 Feb 1996 18:08:58 -0500 (EST)

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 18:08:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Adam Jack <>
Subject: Re: Automatic Entry and Forms 
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960226172201.957B-100000@singhi>

On Mon, 26 Feb 1996 wrote:

> Actually this is not the case, there is very little which stops you
> from setting up your own DNS directory. Absolutely nothing in the
> protocols stops you doing this. 
Thanks for this correction.
> What I was suggesting essentially boils down to reusing the exisiting
> DNs infrastructure. Actually it is slightly wider since if URNs were
> ever to appear there might be a direct route to stating an ISO 
> template - ISO:13042.23 or whatever.
OK.  So this scheme has a big bonus - the fact that templates are
explicitly referenced. Please - help me with some of the possible
problems with it.

I see that the scheme requires field/template tuples. I can't see 
a single template per form as working for reasons of duplication etc. 
Since we must, IMO, have tuples we have some form of naming convention.
Having <INPUT TEMPLATE=URI NAME=FRED> is little different than having
NAME=URI#FRED - is it?

I see that having a tag name is weaker than a hierarchy 'cos it
limits management of such values in a group. As has been mentioned
ACLs etc might be added at the browser. Surely havng a hierarchy
aids this whereby a flat tag name does not. 

Am I wrong in thinking that DNS requires the X.Y.Z form without
specifying the contents of X, Y and Z etc? Is this situation so

Maybe there is some benefit to combining the two to have something 
like URI#X.Y.Z?

Having this in the standard seems to help any implementation more 
than hinder it. Further - since we might as well combine the two
parts of the tuple need there be any new HTML attributes?

> >Could that not equally be done by setting a field name standard and then 
> >stepping back? We could have names like :
> >WWW.Personal.Name.FirstName = Adam
> >WWW.Personal.Name.LastName = Jack

> I think that this would interact very poorly with Java and other mobile
> code projects. I would much rather minimise the impact of automated
> forms filling and leave the names alone.
Did I miss something? Could you explain this please.

> For example my housemate uses the name fields in a form to pass arround 
> pieces of code which amount to a LISP continuation. 
> that there is no reason to build one model of naming things into the system. 

I am trying to see your point - but failing. Any name that is LISP code
is unlikely to appear in any template, correct? So what clashes here?

> There is a tension here between people like myself who might only want to 
> store 
> 6 items and exmplicitly refuse to deal with schemes incorporating social 
> security numbers and the like and vast, comprehensive schemes such as you 
> describe. I suspect that inbetween these there is a place for an ISO like 
> spec with 2000 odd carefully chosen and argued fields.
Personally I fit into the 6 fields category of person - but that is 
almost an aside.  I wonder -- do we all think it is 6? If so - hell,
lets spend a few days voting on names forget templates and be done
with it. Templates allow extensibility into areas that have not yet
been considered.

> Alternatively it might be a piece of Java 
> which would automatically generate the data - although such schemes would be 
> very dicey and require a lot of thought which is why 
> I didn't bring them up in the first place.
So you waited until the contention was flagging to pep it up again? ;)

+1-203-730-5437 |