RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method

Ah, I checked the 1.0 schema; of course.  In Relax NG you can specify
that one or the other must be required.
I hear a later revision of XML Schemas allows co-occurrence constraints
as well. Why not just say it in prose then?
4) A conforming document must have either a method attribute or a method
element.

________________________________

From: John Boyer [mailto:boyerj@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:32 PM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Erik Bruchez; Forms WG
Subject: RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method



Hi Leigh, 

The problem is that we already say, from the schema perspective, that
the method attribute is optional.  This is because we also have a method
element child of submission, which can computationally determine the
method with the value attribute. 
Further, because the method attribute exists, the method element child
is not required either, again from the schema perspective. 

So we have this situation where neither the attribute nor the element is
required, but we claim that one is required, but we don't say what
happens if you don't put one.  The options are 

1) Make method="get" the default if neither the attribute nor the
element is given. 
2) Specify xforms-submit-error (which we did for the resource
attribute/element pair; see the diff on step 7 of submit event
processing) 
3) Continue to not say anything and let implementations pick their own
way of handling the problem (some will do #1, others #2, and others ...)


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
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer> 
Blog RSS feed:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw> 





From: 	"Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com> 
To: 	John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, "Erik Bruchez"
<ebruchez@orbeon.com> 
Cc: 	"Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org> 
Date: 	02/20/2009 03:19 PM 
Subject: 	RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission
method

________________________________




Or leave unspecified behavior and let the user agent handle it however
else it handles Schema violations. 
  
<xsd:attribute name="method" use="required">



________________________________

From: public-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:public-forms-request@w3.org
<mailto:public-forms-request@w3.org> ] On Behalf Of John Boyer
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:40 PM
To: Erik Bruchez
Cc: Forms WG
Subject: Re: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method


Hi Erik, 

Another more compelling possibility is to simply say that "get" is the
default method.  This is simpler editorially, does not introduce a
further error-type, and aligns with the default currently used on the
web.  Does that sound good? 

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
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer> 
Blog RSS feed:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw> 




From: 	Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com> 
To: 	Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org> 
Date: 	02/18/2009 04:17 PM 
Subject: 	Re: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission
method



________________________________




That sounds reasonable except that it is a little annoying to have to  
add a new "method-error" error type, since this type does not exist yet.

-Erik

On Feb 18, 2009, at 1:54 PM, John Boyer wrote:

>
> At some time since CR, it was noticed that we did not say what a  
> submission would do if the resource URI was not specified, and we  
> have corrected the 1.1 spec to say that you get an xforms-submit- 
> error with error-type of resource-error
>
> I was doing a code review on Ubiquity XForms implementation of the  
> method element, and noticed that the 1.1 spec has the same problem  
> for the method.  The spec says that one of the method attribute or  
> method element must be specified, but it does not say what happens  
> if the author violates the requirement.  It looks like a simple  
> omission error, i.e. clearly you should ge tan xforms-submit-error  
> with an error-type of method-error.
>
> 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
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer> 
> Blog RSS feed:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
<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/ <http://www.orbeon.com/>