Re: New introduction to XForms 2.0

> 1. This might be personal, but I don't like much the use of "XForm" as
> a countable thing, as in "an XForm", "some XForms". I would prefer
> talking about a "form", and "some forms", as it is clear what we are
> talking about here.

> 2. I am not sure that it helps to mention "Experience has shown […]
> order of magnitude". I would rather leave this out (or that would call
> for a "citation needed"), as whether true or not it does sound like a
> marketing message.

It *is* a marketing message :-) I have reworded. See if it helps.

> 3. Typo: "manipulted → "manipulated".

Gone after a simplification.

> 4. `<itemset nodeset="...">`: should now be `<itemset ref="...">`.


> 5. "As the name suggests": not sure how the name suggests "Web" forms?
> To me it would suggest "XML" forms ;)

Well, it is the forms bit that is being suggested...

> 6. A big issue with XForms 1.1 and earlier is how you deal with
> calculations on currency values, as there was no decimal type (answer:
> they work on doubles and produce funny results at times). So in the
> example that shows `calculate="../unitprice * ../howmany"`, there
> should be a `bind` assigning a `decimal` type to `unitprice`. This is
> now possible out of the box with the use or XPath 2 and type
> annotations.



Will be live shortly.


> That's it for now!
> -Erik
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Steven Pemberton
> <> wrote:
>> Dear XForms users,
>> I have rewritten the introduction to XForms for the XForms 2.0 spec and
>> would appreciate any comments you might have.
>> I have tried to simplify it. Are there any features that don't get  
>> mentioned
>> that ought to be?
>> Are there things mentioned that don't need to be?
>> Thanks for any help.
>> Steven Pemberton

Received on Monday, 24 February 2014 15:21:17 UTC