- From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 10:27:19 -0700
- To: "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>
John, You are right that this would be used in combination with replace="all", and that technically it is possible to do what you are saying (and BTW it would be quite easy to express this with Relax NG). However in general I think it is bad practice to give an attribute or element a different meaning depending on context. At least in my case, when learning a vocabulary, associating a specific meaning with a name allows me to better remember. Doing otherwise just adds to confusion. So I would rather rename the attribute to prevent the confusion in the first place. This will help form authors. -Erik On Apr 8, 2008, at 9:53 AM, John Boyer wrote: > > Hi Erik, > > It seems that the use of "target" you are describing might be a > legitimate use of it in combination with replace="all", so it might > not be in conflict with our current use of it for replace="instance" > and replace="text". > > The only difference might be the schema datatype for the attribute > would change based on the value of another attribute. Schema > doesn't support this, but a limitation there should not get in the > way of using the same attribute for analogous operations. When > replacing an instance, the target for where we put the submission > result is given by an XPath into the data. When doing a > replace="all", it would be up for debate whether target should give > an XPath on the document or be an IDREF. > > What do you think? > > John M. Boyer, Ph.D. > Senior Technical Staff Member > 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 > Blog RSS feed: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw > > > > > Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com> > Sent by: public-forms-request@w3.org > 04/07/2008 05:23 PM > > To > "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org> > cc > Subject > Unfortunate choice of attribute name in XForms 1.1: > xforms:submission/@target > > > > > > > All, > > It just occurred to me that the XForms 1.1 xforms:submission/@target > attribute [1] is badly chosen. > > The reason is that a "target", in HTML speak, specifies an optional > target window or frame. This, in particular, applies to <a> and <form> > in HTML. [2] > > In the future, we may want to officially support such a concept of > target window or frame in XForms. Purely out of familiarity with HTML, > the name "target" would be an obvious choice. But if we use "target" > now to specify the destination for data replacement, we won't be able > to use that name. > > (Note that in our implementation, we already support an extension > attribute called xxforms:target on xforms:submission and xforms:load, > which behaves like its HTML counterpart.) > > For this reason I suggest that we change the name of this attribute in > XForms 1.1. Suggestions are welcome, but "destination" could work. > > -Erik > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#submit > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html#adef-target > > -- > 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/
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 17:34:54 UTC