W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > March 2008

Dollar version of simplified syntax still not elaborated for PO example

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:16:08 -0700
To: Forms WG (new) <public-forms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF59C2C2EC.D99235CA-ON8825740A.00166E04-8825740A.001774F5@ca.ibm.com>
A while ago I posted simplified syntax for the purchase order example 
(except insert/delete triggers for now)

and then the post showed what the corresponding canonical XForms would 
look like.

Then we had a great discussion on the list about various aspects of the 
"dollar" proposal, which seeks to do the same things only by using XPath 
variables based on "implied" binds for named form controls.

It definitely seems like both will work.  In fact, the biggest oddness may 
be that many forms will work *whether or not * you use the dollar symbols. 
 I rather hope that only one method or the other will work, but that will 
depend on exactly what canonical XForm is implied for the simplified 
syntax under the dollar (variable) proposal.

I like the non-dollar proposal because there are no confusing dollars to 
type, but I like the way that the dollar proposal uses the context-based 
binding ID referencing mechanism to figure out which inner bind we might 
be talking about.  But I'd also like to be sure that this claim is 
actually true in light of some actual markup.

So, for the two reasons above, could someone (prior to the telecon) please 
post the dollar proposal solution to the purchase order example given in 
my prior email here:


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: 
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 04:17:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:56 UTC