- From: Erik Bruchez <erik@bruchez.org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 22:58:22 -0700
- To: public-forms@w3.org
- Cc: public-xformsusers@w3.org
All, I have started reviewing the spec, namely the diffed version [1]. Some comments below: 1. Introduction This is not new but I have never liked the use of "XForm" (singular). The only place in the spec doing this is here "An XForm allows" -> suggesting using "XForms allows". Need action for this. 2. JSON Are we sure we want to specify our own JSON mapping? Aren't there multiple competing options? I remember reading some skepticism about this at XML Prague. 3. CSV Do we really want to do this? 4. Common Attributes: I don't think the changes discussed last week wrt moving more attributes to Commons are in, right? 5. Functions 5.1. Do we really need "override"? what was the purpose of this? 5.2. I don't think we have ruled out my proposal to simplify this with no nested elements (i.e. no <var>, <sequence>, <script>). Need to discuss. 6. Repeat over atomic values In 9.3.3, we need to be more clear about how atomic values "match" (provide example) upon repeat sequence update. Need action to improve this. 7. "xforms-script-language-not-supported-exception" A bit shocked by the length of this event… 8. Insert We talked about improving this action, maybe with an "into" attribute. Should we still consider this? If so need action to complete it. 9. show="embed" I think the current text is still very incomplete. Need to discuss/action to complete it. In general, there are some wording issues (tenses, in particular). How do we fix that? I haven't yet reviewed the XPath Expression Module. I don't know if any of the above needs to be addressed for a FPWD. -Erik [1] http://goo.gl/xi8IW
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 05:59:13 UTC