- From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:22:06 -0700
- To: "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>
One issue with the name "response" is that in HTTP, request and response don't only include the body, they also include status code and headers [1]. However this attribute would only handle the response *body*. -Erik [1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec6.html#sec6 On Apr 25, 2008, at 4:54 PM, John Boyer wrote: > > Not to preempt Steven's action item to figure out a new name, but I > was travelling through the submission text for other reasons, and it > seems we have pretty consistent language around the term > 'response'. Also, this is the name that Leigh suggested on the last > telecon (I think we got caught up in discussing the problems with it > being a child element, and didn't therefore notice it might be a > good name for the attribute). > > So, what about 'response' as a new name for 'target'? The response > attribute would provide an XPath to indicate where to put the > submission response. > > Cheers, > 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 > -- Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way http://www.orbeon.com/
Received on Saturday, 26 April 2008 00:22:45 UTC