W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > December 2007

Re: A decimal-string() function proposed for XForms 1.2

From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:31:23 -0800
Message-Id: <6F43318C-DAE8-4F79-B52B-CF0BC1D120DC@orbeon.com>
To: "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>

On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:51 PM, John Boyer wrote:

> Hi Nick (and Erik),
> The uneasiness about adding a feature in one release which is  
> "useless" in the next release must be tempered by the understanding  
> of what "next" means in this case.
> XForms 2.0 is a *major* revision over 1.x.  It is going to happen  
> that we add features to 1.x that are not as useful in 2.0. Agreed  
> that we should be minimalist about it and agreed that such features  
> should at least not conflict, at realistic best be aligned with 2.0  
> capabilities.  But we have to be careful about being too rigid.  If  
> we have a limitation that causes problems for a vertical industry,  
> and there is a straightforward fix, then we need to be responsive.

One solution to this is to define XPath 2.0 support in a separate  
document, as I suggested in an earlier message, in a way as orthogonal  
to other features as possible. This way XPath 2.0 support can be  
specified in a timeframe shorter than that of XForms 2.0. This also  
follows Mark's suggestion of doing smaller specs. XForms 2.0 could  
then normatively refer to that spec without duplicating the work.  
Again I don't know if or how our charter allows something like this,  
but it sounds appealing to me.

As for the functions in general, we could come up with dozens such  
functions for dozens of vertical industries. To me, these should not  
be part of the standard function library. I repeat myself, but there  
are so many limitations in XForms due to the use of XPath 1.0 that I  
think this is where we should concentrate our energy instead of  
patching things up, whatever the timeframe for the specs is.


Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 19:31:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:55 UTC