- From: Mark Seaborne <mark@picoforms.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:43:08 +0100
- To: ebruchez@orbeon.com
- Cc: Forms WG (new) <public-forms@w3.org>
> All, > > I think there are some good points that came up in this > discussion. It's good to see that this is causing more people > (finally, I should say) to react to what's going on. > > But I am still not convinced by Nick, Mark and Joern's arguments! Well, I'll just have to try again then ;-) > Consider this: we say with the @constraint attribute that the value of > an element or attribute must satisfy certain conditions, right? Yet, > will we prevent xforms:setvalue from setting a value that does not > satisfy this condition? What about @type? What about @required? A user can use an input to set a value that breaks a constraint or type, and so can a setvalue. We have consistency. The new text for read-only creates an inconsistency between what a form user can achieve directly through a form control and indirectly through setvalue. The argument is not that the terms of any MIPs can never be violated, that depends on the purpose of each MIP. Rather, we are saying that a MIP should be honoured in the same way by direct user action through a form control, and any other mechanisms used to set values. Have a good weekend Mark
Received on Friday, 24 August 2007 13:41:41 UTC