- From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:16:01 -0700
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- Cc: Nick Van den Bleeken <Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com>, "public-forms@w3.org" <public-forms@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFB3F6D7FD.F47A8442-ON88257603.005CAB9B-88257603.005EDA64@ca.ibm.com>
Just furthering the discussion... The use case seems to be more around modeless dialogs that the author wants to be available when the form starts. It's harder to imagine starting a form off with a modal dialog, but it would be feasible. We'll have some trouble dealing with what is supposed to happen if more than one modal dialog is indicate as being opened on form start. The "visible" attribute actually corresponds to whether it should be open on construction, so it's not really related to xforms-ready. With a switch, you have to know that the processor will construct one and show you a particular case on startup. Similarly, this feature talks about what initial UI creation will do with the dialog. So, although it's not really more techie than what you have to know about switch, we're still working on deprecating the selected attributes of case anyway, in preference to something that is more data-centric and less specific to UI initialization. The particular name 'visible' is not very good because it is like 'selected' on case. The name does not really imply that the attribute is saying something about how the dialog interacts with initial construction of the form. In this regard, using another value for the appearance attribute is also not too desirable because appearance also seems to hint at something stable throughout the life of the dialog rather than something that is processed at a moment in time in the startup of the form. A horrible but nonetheless better name would be something like showonformstart="true". I thought I'd send an email to see if a better name showed up, but this feature seems relatively low on the demand-o-meter and relatively high on the picky-techie-detail-o-meter, to the point where <show ev:event="xforms-ready" dialog="X" /> does not really seem out of place. We could add something in the future to make "open on startup" dialogs easier in the future if we see a lot of demand for that specific pattern. But as Mark is pointing out, it might be better to see what the real patterns are before we encode such picky features with more and more attributes. Knobs and dials are good, but too many of them makes the machine unwieldy. 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: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com> To: Nick Van den Bleeken <Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com> Cc: John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, "public-forms@w3.org" <public-forms@w3.org> Date: 07/30/2009 03:41 AM Subject: Re: [dialog element] need another name for "visible" attribute Hi Nick, > I'm a bit concerned with using the attribute appearance for something more as > a rendering hint. Correct my if I'm wrong, but is appearance until now not just a > hint to the user agent about how the control could be rendered. I.e. it doesn't > drives the availability of a UI control, for your case a 'splashpage' it probably > doesn't matter if the dialog isn't showed at all. In the case we were talking about > on the phone, a modeless dialog that needs be shown at startup, it probably > would matter if the dialog is shown or not, so ignoring the appearance attribute > may make a form unusable. Sure...except... > Here is a link to what we currently have http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/Dialog ...the @close value is based on the value of @appearance. So if you can ignore @appearance, you could in theory end up with an uncloseable dialog. Anyway, the key point I'm making is that rather than creating very literal attributes, that precisely define some behaviour, we might consider asking why we want the behaviour in the first place, and see if we can't put a layer over it. To me, an attribute that means 'make a dialog visible after xforms-ready' seems very techie. It requires you to understand dialogs and 'xforms-ready', which in turn requires that you understand events. An attribute value that means 'this dialog is a splash-page', only requires you to understand dialogs. How we achieve that is of course a separate question. We've talked in the past about using @role to indicate the *purpose* of an element, which is 'stronger' than the hint provided by @appearance. By the way, I'm not saying this is the only solution. I'm merely saying that we might want to go one level up, rather than simply looking for another name for @visible. But another solution would be to simply use @selected, from switch/case -- it at least has the advantage of consistency. Anyway, just some thoughts. :) Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck, webBackplane mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street, London, EC2A 4RR)
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 17:16:45 UTC