W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xformsusers@w3.org > March 2017

Re: submission/@relevant proposal

From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:43:00 +0200
To: "public-xformsusers@w3.org" <public-xformsusers@w3.org>, "Erik Bruchez" <erik@bruchez.org>, "Philip Fennell" <Philip.Fennell@marklogic.com>
Message-ID: <op.yxu39yz2smjzpq@steven-xps>
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:28:17 +0200, Philip Fennell  
<Philip.Fennell@marklogic.com> wrote:

>
> With regard to nonrelevant="empty", what happens to the children of a  
> branch node that is, >itself, not relevant? Does the submission descend  
> that branch of the tree removing text nodes >and attribute values of its  
> descendants?

You mean in a case like this:

   <instance>
     <data xmlns="">
       <amount>9.9</amount>
       <method>cash</method>
       <cc><number>1234567890</number>
           <expire>12/17</expire>
       </cc>
     </data>
   </instance>
   <bind ref="cc" relevant="../method='cc'"/>
   <submission ... nonrelevant="blank" .../>

Should we expect
     <data xmlns="">
       <amount>9.9</amount>
       <method>cash</method>
       <cc><number/>
           <expire/>
       </cc>
     </data>

or

     <data xmlns="">
       <amount>9.9</amount>
       <method>cash</method>
       <cc/>
     </data>

?

Steven


>
>
>
> Philip
>
>
> From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
> Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
> Date: Wednesday, 29 March 2017 at 10:35
> To: "public-xformsusers@w3.org" <public-xformsusers@w3.org>, Erik  
> Bruchez ><erik@bruchez.org>
> Subject: Re: xf:submission/@relevant proposal
> Resent-From: <public-xformsusers@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Wednesday, 29 March 2017 at 10:36
>
>
> I think it's a good idea to improve this.
>
>
> I agree that "relevant='true'" is not descriptive, and confusing.
>
>
> I think that we should keep "relevant='true|false'" to mean what it does  
> now, and deprecate it.
>
>
> I'm not sure about the word "prune", since it is not a widely-used word  
> (and has an amusing >second meaning).
>
>
> I presume by 'blank' you mean 'make empty'.
>
>
> So on reflection I like the idea of deprecating @relevant, and  
> introducing @nonrelevant.
>
>
> How about
>
>
>    nonrelevant="keep|remove|empty"
>
>
> with a default of
>
>    'keep' if @serialization="none"
>
>    'remove' otherwise.
>
>
> (Although I would prefer a wording that says that this attribute only  
> applies if @serialization >is not "none", and the default value is  
> "remove")
>
>
> Steven
>
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:38:09 +0100, Erik Bruchez <erik@bruchez.org>  
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>> This attribute takes a boolean value. It is both:
>>
>>
>> - confusing because it's hard to know which boolean value means to keep  
>> non-relevant >>nodes or to prune them,
>>
>> - and limited because there is more you could do with non-relevant  
>> nodes, including >>blanking them.
>>
>>
>> So I suggest moving from a boolean to using tokens:
>>
>>
>> - `keep`: keep all non-relevant nodes
>>
>> - `blank`: keep non-relevant nodes but blank the value of non-relevant  
>> attributes and non->>relevant leaf elements
>>
>> - `prune`: prune all non-relevant nodes
>>
>>
>> (A case could be made to allow for the `relevant` MIP to optionally  
>> blank nodes during >>`recalculate` as well. But that could be  
>> considered separately.)
>>
>>
>> We could deprecate `false` and `true` on `relevant` and add the 3  
>> tokens above to that >>attribute. The issue with this is that:
>>
>>
>>    relevant="prune"
>>
>>
>> might give the impression that this will prune relevant nodes (which  
>> doesn't make much >>sense).
>>
>>
>> We could also introduce a new attribute, for example `nonrelevant`,  
>> which would take >>precedence over a deprecated `relevant` attribute:
>>
>>
>>    nonrelevant="blank"
>>
>>
>> Thoughts welcome.
>>
>>
>> -Erik
>>
Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2017 12:43:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:37:47 UTC