W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xformsusers@w3.org > November 2016

Re: Lazy authoring

From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:34:47 +0100
To: "Erik Bruchez" <ebruchez@orbeon.com>, "Nick Van den Bleeken" <Nick.Van.den.Bleeken@inventivegroup.com>
Cc: "public-xformsusers@w3.org" <public-xformsusers@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.yrfbf9tqsmjzpq@steven-aspire-s7>
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 07:23:15 +0100, Nick Van den Bleeken  
<Nick.Van.den.Bleeken@inventivegroup.com> wrote:

>
> Doesn't lazy authoring make the onboarding of new people easier? As your  
> first form will probably be easy, and lazy authoring will work for that  
> >kind of scenarios.

Well, that was the argument. The question is, does anybody ever use it? If  
the answer is yes, then fine.

Steven
>
> Surely it falls short for the typical xforms form. And surely for the  
> type of forms that make xforms shine. But I would personally leave it to  
> >make the creation of your first form a bit easier.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick
>
> On Nov 23, 2016 3:43 PM, Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com> wrote:
>>> 1. Proposal: We deprecate lazy authoring.
>>
>> I don't have a problem with that. We never implemented it, not that it  
>> would be hard, but forms quickly go beyond what lazy authoring allows  
>> in >>its current state.
>>
>>> 2.
>>
>>>  <model/>
>>>  model id="m"/>
>>>
>>>  <input ref="a" label="a"/>
>>>  <input ref="b" label="b"/>
>>>  <input ref="a" model="m" label="ma"/>
>>>  <input ref="b" model="m" label="mb"/>
>>>
>>> So I think that "for the same instance" is missing from the first case.
>>>
>>> Agree?
>>
>> I am not sure I understand but, but in the example above, lazy  
>> authoring would kick in.
>>
>> -Erik
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2016 08:35:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 24 November 2016 08:35:34 UTC