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

Test suite and other notes for XForms 1.0 Third edition

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:43:18 -0700
To: public-forms@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF63025C97.A31CBC93-ON882572EC.007032A6-882572EC.0071D44C@ca.ibm.com>
Dear Forms Working Group,

As you may have just seen on the public list, the spec for XForms 1.0 
Third Edition is now available as editor's draft [1] and diff-marked 
version [2].  The source bundle is also available, but I don't expect you 
will have as much use for that one as for the XForms 1.1 source bundle :-)


The document is marked 'Proposed Edited Recommendation' and appears 
largely ready to go with a few exceptions:

1) The test suite link still points to XForms 1.0 Second Edition test 
suite.  We need a new instance of the test suite that is updated with 
tests for the new errata.

2) I've followed the rules, but I didn't yet run pubrules (because it has 
to be available from our site first).  So, a thing or two might change. 

3) The status of the document was a little more difficult to write than 
expected, and not just because of the need to get the correct patent 
policy boilerplate text.  It is also necessary to identify the errata that 
affect schema conformance.  Please have a look at the two I listed and the 
rationale I provided, which I believe to be reflective of the group's 
decisions.  Let me know if there are any concerns. 

In particular, note that there were a few more errata which *could* be 
interpreted as affecting conformance.  These are E20 [3], E21 [4], and E23 

[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/REC-xforms-20060314-errata.html#E20
[4] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/REC-xforms-20060314-errata.html#E21
[5] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/REC-xforms-20060314-errata.html#E23

I did not regard these as conformance issues because in the case of E20 
and E23 the schema was already correct, and in the case of E21, the 
multipart-post option was omitted from the schema enumeration for 
submission method, but it appeared in the normative specification, so I 
felt it was just an oversight in the schema definition.

Please let me know of any concerns regarding why I listed only E9 and E32f 
as affecting a document's schema conformance.

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
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 20:43:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:21 UTC