- From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:20:48 -0800
- To: Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>
- Cc: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTikEBrYiicGmpi32qtATghjhj_mkYBqYxcydCM20@mail.gmail.com>
Kurt, Thanks for putting together this proposal. Some comments: 1. "When the @for binding is in place, then the evaluative context of the meta-control would no longer be the context of it's container, but instead would be the context of the bound control " This would be very confusing. XPath scoping should remain lexical. 2. <xf:for> element I am not convinced that the use case is very compelling for this. This said, if there are compelling use cases, then as usual I would rather favor an AVT approach for all dynamic attributes: <xf:label for="{controlIdentifierExpr}"> Or generalize the idea that you can either use an AVT or a child element with the same name and keep this philosophy throughout XForms. 3. @language attribute It's a bit confusing to have both a @lang (known in HTML) and a @language attribute. Can't we just use @lang? Also, in XForms models introduce some issues as they don't follow lexical scoping: top-level models are typically "next to each other", but controls associated with those models are not descendants of the xf:model element, obviously. On the other hand, something like @xml:lang is supposed to apply following the structure of the XML document. It might be better to just use @lang, not apply language on a model basis, but on the host language or XForms grouping elements, e.g.: <html lang="es"> … applies to the whole document unless overridden on descendant elements … <group lang="en"> … applies to the whole subtree unless overridden on descendant elements … etc. If you are going to have multiple regions on a page binding to multiple models, you will typically do this anyway: <group model="model1"> … So you can as well do: <group model="model1" lang="zh"> … In our implementation BTW we already support using <html lang="…">, even with an AVT as value, which allows dynamically changing some i18n features. 4. @for on xf:model Here you don't make a case for label/@for. What would this do? I understand the case for help/@for, but then why not: <group> <help>…</help> I think it would be better to keep associating LHHA elements to user interface controls, again unless a strong use case shows up. -Erik On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com> wrote: > I've put together some thoughts from our discussion on @for and @lang from > last week that seems to hold together fairly cohesively on the Wiki at > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/Metadata_Controls . These are > suggestions only, and am looking for potential holes that may occur with > this approach. > > Kurt >
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 03:21:41 UTC