- From: Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:47:24 -0800
- To: "John Boyer" <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Erik Bruchez" <ebruchez@orbeon.com>, "Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <E254B0A7E0268949ABFE5EA97B7D0CF4070EFBB3@USA7061MS01.na.xerox.net>
I have no objection to 2) Fix the problem by making method="get" the default, which also aligns with the web and doesn't introduce another error-type HTML 4.01 says method is required; XHTML 1.0 says it defaults to "get" so that would be the better solution. However, I definitely object to our current practice (and saying that we just did it isn't good enough) of adding new error types to signal markup errors. The schema and the prose specify the lexical representation, and if it a processor determines it doesn't match the schema, it should not process the document. Otherwise we're re-inventing document validation with DOM events. ________________________________ From: John Boyer [mailto:boyerj@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:38 PM To: Klotz, Leigh Cc: Erik Bruchez; Forms WG Subject: RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method No we don't, though that's a little like asking "why make something better if it still won't be perfect?" It's also not really the same issue. If you find a schema violation like the one you're showing, the usual web behavior of ignoring the non-understandable content is what happens most of the time, and the spec doesn't say much on the point. This situation is different because the spec does say something definitive because we're talking about a known attribute/element pair and how it is processed by a defined processing model. Except we didn't say exactly what to do in the error scenario. If you look at step 5 of submit processing, we say to get the method. If you look at step 6 of submit processing, we say to get the resource. In diffs since CR, the WG decided to fix the problem of not specifying a resource by specifically providing an xforms-submit-error with error-type of resource-error. See the diff mark in this section: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#submit-ev t-submit <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#submit-e vt-submit> Now we have exactly the same situation in step 5 as we fixed in step 6. This is the context in which I meant that we have three solutions: 1) Ignore the problem because there are other schema violations we don't cover and we'll never be perfect 2) Fix the problem by making method="get" the default, which also aligns with the web and doesn't introduce another error-type 3) Fix the problem by making an xforms-submit-error with an error-type. #1 and #3 have about the same amount of merit in this case. #2 seems better to me. The addition of the error for absence of resource was very useful because an author can now use a resource-less submission to test validity of data. If the error-type is validation-error, then data is invalid. If the error-type is resource-error, then the data is valid. But for method, there is no utility in the error, so #1 and #3 get about the same mileage. But #2 simplifies authoring, aligns to current web default, and makes one less place in the spec where we tell implementers that authors are required to do something but then don't say how to deal with the error case. 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 Cc: "Erik Bruchez" <ebruchez@orbeon.com>, "Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org> Date: 02/20/2009 03:54 PM Subject: RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method ________________________________ What do we tell processors to do in this situation: <xf:model> <xf:fnord /> </xf:model > ? ________________________________ From: John Boyer [mailto:boyerj@ca.ibm.com <mailto:boyerj@ca.ibm.com> ] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:40 PM To: Klotz, Leigh Cc: Erik Bruchez; Forms WG Subject: RE: 1.1 spec correction for unspecified submission method That *is* what we say now, in prose. The problem is that we then don't say what happens when the requirement is not met. It's a requirement on authors not on implementers, so we either have to tell implementers what to do when authors don't meet the requirement or the implementations will not all behave the same authors don't meet the requirement. 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 Cc: "Erik Bruchez" <ebruchez@orbeon.com>, "Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org> Date: 02/20/2009 03:35 PM Subject: 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 <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/>
Received on Saturday, 21 February 2009 00:48:32 UTC