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

Thanks Erik.  I took it the right way.
Thanks also for being very responsive during the face to face time to 
reading and considering these final changes we were making to the CR spec.

Yes agreed that the particular wording does allow insertion of PIs and 
comments into the root node.  Because the result of an xpath could be the 
root node, the choice was to make it an error or make it work.  Since it 
could work in a manner consistent with everything else, making an error 
seemed to be an unnecessary limitation.

I do like it better now; you were right that it really does make things 
simpler, which we need for insert, so I am glad you insisted.

:-)
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 10:45 PM
Please respond to
ebruchez@orbeon.com


To
public-forms@w3.org
cc

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







John,

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!

-Erik

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
http://www.orbeon.com/