- 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 :-) [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.0.ThirdEdition/index-all.html [2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.0.ThirdEdition/index-diff.html 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 [5]. [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. Thanks, 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