Re: New spec-ready text for select/select1 with value and copy


Sorry I could not get to this before you did.

One major thing seems to be missing, which is the mention that the
behavior of select is non-destructive (isue 89). I don't see this in
your text now (or if it is, it is hidden too well), and I think that
this should be made very explicit.

As a note, I think that surgical changes are good especially when
getting so close from CR, but the current result in my opinion is,
like the original 1.0 text, harder for somebody like me to understand
than an approach which tries to detail more precisely what should
happen, as I proposed to do.


John Boyer wrote:
 > The editor's draft now contains changes for issues 88 to 90 regarding
 > behavioral problems with value and copy [1,2].
 > [1]

 > [2]
 > For the record, Erik's earlier text was really good and was used as a
 > guide. However, we needed it to be applicable to copy as well as value.
 > Also, when I got back into the spec, I found that the prior text had a
 > good idea of trying to say what would be true about the control
 > separately from when it would be enforced.  I also found that the
 > existing text contained some statements that I wanted to retain without
 > diff marks because they were contentious in the past.  For these
 > reasons, I had to be more surgical about the application of the ideas to
 > the spec.
 > The separate text indicating when truth would be enforced was indeed
 > missing, so it was added, but it was unnecessary to drop into bullet
 > points because the "general truth" versions of  "For closed selections"
 > and "For open selections" already contained material commensurate with
 > the bullet points.  I also found it necessary to put diffs into binding
 > restrictions and implementation requirements, mainly to account for copy
 > at the same time as value.  Lastly, the comment about disallowing empty
 > and whitespace only values was added, but not as a note so there is no
 > confusion about whether it is normative.
 > I believe that the new text synch's up very nicely with what Erik wanted
 > out of his last call comments (as indicated by his prior version of a
 > text solution), and that it also does provide consistency between value
 > and copy handling, so the diffs are worth your time reviewing.
 > Please comment if you see anything needing improvement in [1,2].
 > 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:
 > Blog:

Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way

Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 16:43:09 UTC