Fw: Spec examples probably incorrect

Making sure I don't miss this.

----- Forwarded by John Boyer/CanWest/IBM on 11/19/2008 08:37 PM -----

From:
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
To:
Aaron Reed <aaronr@us.ibm.com>
Cc:
www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-request@w3.org
Date:
11/19/2008 03:02 PM
Subject:
Re: Spec examples probably incorrect




Yes, agree those examples need to be corrected. 
Could look at adding value attribute in more places in future versions, 
but using output in the message should be quite good enough for 1.1 (in 
the sense that "that's what we meant, if not what we said in every 
example"). 

The submission example is already ripe for change, since it already has 
the output in the message, so the ref just needs to be a value attribute 
instead.  The example in the structure model section needs the 
output-with-value to be added in lieu of a ref on the message element 
itself.  Finally, it would be easy to add a note to the message element 
section that linked to these two other locations for further examples, 
rather than inventing still more examples. 

In any case, thanks, that is a good catch! 

Cheers, 
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications
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




From: 
Aaron Reed <aaronr@us.ibm.com> 
To: 
www-forms@w3.org 
Date: 
11/19/2008 02:08 PM 
Subject: 
Spec examples probably incorrect





Hi,

I mentioned this to Leigh and Keith, but I figured I'd bring this up to 
the whole group, too.

One of our users said that the spec has an example of event() being used 
with xf:output in a @ref and he was right -> 
http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#submit-evt-submit-error which I believe 
is incorrect.  I also think that the xf:message with event() being used 
in a @ref example under http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#structure-model 
is incorrect, too.

Leigh mentioned that perhaps allowing @value on a xf:message might not 
be a bad idea, especially for reporting errors and I think he is right. 
 It would be pretty useful.  Embedding a xf:output inside the 
xf:message isn't exactly difficult, but it might not be quickly thought 
of by an author.  If we don't go with @value on a xf:message, how about 
putting an example of embedding a xf:output inside a xf:message inside 
the message section of the spec?

--Aaron