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

Re: 15 Insert/Delete Examples updated in Editor's draft

From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:45:29 -0800
Message-ID: <47300D89.7040103@orbeon.com>
To: public-forms@w3.org


Wow, you are a real "bourreau de travail" (in a good way ;-).

I like the more explicit approach used in point 7a of section
10.3. One question about the following:

   "If the insert location node is the root node of an instance (which
    is the parent of the root element), and the cloned node is not an
    element, then the target location is before the first child of the
    insert location node."

I assume this is intended to allow inserting PIs and comments as
children of a document node, right? I believe that this case was not
explicitly considered before, but I think it is good to allow this.

I also like the fact that 10.3.7d and B4 now makes it clearer that we
are not considering attributes as an ordered list, and the rationale
given is very good too.

So it seems that if I read 10.3 and B4 well, everything is now as I
expected it to be wrt xforms:insert :-) Yay!


John Boyer wrote:
 > Hi Erik,
 > It was needed today, so I completed the task.  It is now approaching
 > 1am, so I will talk to you in the morning about it if needed.
 > For the record, we did not re-add the text in a different place.
 > We did put aspects of the former text back *because* we lost important
 > use cases without them, such as the ability to insert attributes.
 > Please note that the amended text *must* still be predicated on the type
 > of cloned node and/or the type of insert location node.  It will be
 > obvious once you review the text that this is both unavoidable and quite
 > natural. For example, if the context attribute is used to specify the
 > parent of the cloned node, one must still decide whether to add the
 > cloned node to the attribute list or child list based on whether or not
 > the cloned node is an attribute.
 > Anyway, the result of your request (context for parent container,
 > nodeset for sibling) has made insert easier to understand, which was the
 > goal.
 > We hope to discuss transition to CR in the morning, so please review by
 > then.
 > Thank you,
 > 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
 > *Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>*
 > Sent by: public-forms-request@w3.org
 > 11/05/2007 09:54 AM
 > Please respond to
 > ebruchez@orbeon.com
 > To
 > 	public-forms@w3.org
 > cc
 > 	"Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>
 > Subject
 > 	Re: 15 Insert/Delete Examples updated in Editor's draft
 > John,
 >  > Notwithstanding whether the intent of your proposal was misunderstood,
 >  > the thing you proposed (the removal of certain text) did occur.
 > My initial comment proposed the removal of that text with a certain
 > intent, which was clearly explained (and re-explained in this thread).
 > If then the content of that removed text is re-added but in a
 > different place, then the removal obviously does nothing to achieve
 > that intent.
 >  > Can you reformulate what you want to happen based on the latest 
copy of
 >  > the spec?
 >  > This will be needed for comparison.
 > I will attempt to do this today.
 > -Erik
 > --
 > Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
 > http://www.orbeon.com/

Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 06:45:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:27 UTC