W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xformsusers@w3.org > June 2013

Re: Some remaining action items

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:23:53 -0700
To: Erik Bruchez <erik@bruchez.org>
Cc: ebruchez@gmail.com, public-forms@w3.org, "public-xformsusers@w3.org" <public-xformsusers@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF43B9BABD.F88D0983-ON88257B88.0054066E-88257B88.005496E2@ca.ibm.com>
The "other" MIP functions have a better chance of success if they state 
not just that they return the value of the MIP, but that they set up a 
computational dependency on the MIPs as if they were "shadow" instance 
data.  This would ensure that calculations which invoke MIP functions run 
after all calculations that may update the values of the MIPs.
Validity is a little harder because it includes validity information that 
is only evaluated after recalculate, i.e. during revalidate.

Also, for this reason, it would be helpful to have a required() function 
and a constraint() functions that return the consolidated results of the 
required attributes and constraint attributes, respectively. In other 
words, the required MIP and constraint MIP consolidate the attributes, as 
already specified, and the functions just A) return the value of the MIP, 
and B) set up a dependency on the MIP value.

Cheers,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
IBM Distinguished Engineer & IBM Master Inventor
@johnboyerphd | boyerj@ca.ibm.com




From:   Erik Bruchez <erik@bruchez.org>
To:     public-forms@w3.org, "public-xformsusers@w3.org" 
<public-xformsusers@w3.org>, 
Date:   12/06/2013 08:03 AM
Subject:        Some remaining action items
Sent by:        ebruchez@gmail.com



All,

Looking at what's on my plate (or might end up on it), I see:

1. ACTION-1933 - Suggest spec text for MIP functions

The valid() function is already there. [1] What's missing is adding
the functions to access the other MIPs,
relevant()/required()/readonly(). That should be pretty easy.

2. ACTION-1896 - Send a e-mail to Michael Kay about providing type
information to the nodes in instances

This is an old action item. The original question I think is obsolete,
but the new question on this is whether it is reasonable to compile
XPath expressions without knowing *any* node types, but to provide
those types at runtime when the expression runs. I think it should be,
but it'd be good to double-check.

3. Integrate xf:dialog spec

I don't think there is an action item on this one, but we had decided
to do it. There is a resolution for show/hide [2], but no action item.
We need one.

4. ACTION-1948 - Provide spec text for multipart

This is a late-minute feature, but we discussed it and I was under the
impression I could write up something "quickly".

5. ACTION-1868: Bruchez to summarize problems with error handling and
three options for variable type handling

This is an older action item, and I had it on hold. Not sure what to
do with it right now, clearly a P2 for now.

I don't know about other people's action items.

Finally, I am pretty sure some of the XForms 2 text hasn't been
reviewed (at least by me).

-Erik

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XPath_Expressions_Module#The_valid.28.29_Function

[2] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/30-forms-minutes.html
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 15:24:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:24 UTC