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

RE: test case for bind/@type validation and first text node rule

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:46:36 -0700
To: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
Cc: "David Landwehr" <david.landwehr@picoforms.com>, public-forms@w3.org, public-forms-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1FAA208B.AA66C53B-ON882572FF.006C0A6F-882572FF.006CA2CE@ca.ibm.com>
In the 2004 email, it asks whether the UI binding is to the element or to 
the text node.  It was clear at the time that it was not the element, 
since the element may have attributes and the form control cannot set 
those too.

But no alternative to *the* text node interpretation was proposed.  Now, 
after three more years of experience, it is clearer that there is a much 
more preferrable alternative, which is to say that the UI binding binds to 
the content of the element.

This means that the "string()" of the node is shown as the initial 
content, and a change to the content would replace the existing content 
with the new text, which may destroy any intervening PIs, comments etc.

One reason this was not considered is that it was not well-known, despite 
being in the recommendation, that UI controls which attempt to bind to 
nodes with complex content are supposed to produce a binding exception. 
This means that we don't need the first text node rule to resolve the 
problem of binding to complex content.

Since we can focus on the issue of intervening PIs and comments, the 
reality is that if someone really wants to bind to a particular text node 
and preserve sibling PIs and comments, there is a way to do that with a 
better XPath, but that isn't really our *main* use case, so it should not 
be the default behavior.  When a UI binding and type MIP both indicate an 
element, they should be talking about the same thing, which is the 

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

"Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com> 
Sent by: public-forms-request@w3.org
06/19/2007 11:41 AM

"David Landwehr" <david.landwehr@picoforms.com>
RE: test case for bind/@type validation and first text node rule

As always, your insight is valuable.  It would have been somewhat more
valuable had you been able to participate in the face to face meeting,
even by IRC, but I understand you may have business contraints.  Please
continue to provide feedback on this issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Landwehr [mailto:david.landwehr@picoforms.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 11:35 AM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: public-forms@w3.org
Subject: Re: test case for bind/@type validation and first text node

Okay, then I really regret that Roland and I spend time on the issue 
at the time; now when the work turned out so fruitless. I hope that 
this second iteration will come up with something good. I'll leave it 
to you and look forward to hear the conclusion :-)

Best regards,

On Jun 19, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Klotz, Leigh wrote:

> Yes, it's the same issue but that isn't the message that started 
> it; it
> was a last-call comment.
> I typed in this example down from fragements written on the whiteboard
> where we explored some of the test cases.
> Leigh.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:public-forms-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of David Landwehr
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 2:15 PM
> To: Klotz, Leigh
> Cc: public-forms@w3.org
> Subject: Re: test case for bind/@type validation and first text node
> rule
> Hi all,
> Is this the same issue as http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-
> forms/2004AprJun/0016.html ?
> Best regards,
> David
> On Jun 15, 2007, at 10:48 PM, Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
>> This example highlights a number unfortunate issues with the first
>> text-node child rule highlighted by John Boyer and Erik Bruchez.
>> <firstnode.xhtml>
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 19:47:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:52 UTC