W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xformsusers@w3.org > November 2020

Re: Builder Module 1.0

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 17:47:41 +0000
Message-Id: <CABF64E4-7132-413B-829C-B3D69AB1B7A0@saxonica.com>
Cc: XForms <public-xformsusers@w3.org>
To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Thanks. I was aware of these functions, and I guess they probably inspired my thinking at some stage, though I'm not sure I would want to be constrained to be 100% compatible.

One concern is how the functions are named. XQuery (https://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-31/#id-reserved-fn-names) states that the unprefixed names element() and attribute() (as well as comment() and text()) are reserved; and document() is already in use as a function name. Clearly a/b/c/element(*) creates scope for ambiguity: how is this handled in XForms? In the proposed Builder module I tried to resolve this by putting the functions in their own namespace. It's not a perfect solution (I don't like proliferation of namespaces), but in the circumstances it seems better than other options available.


> On 20 Nov 2020, at 13:43, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> The XForms group is interested to see your proposal, because it matches parts of what have been in XForms for some time:
> 	https://www.w3.org/community/xformsusers/wiki/XForms_2.0#XML_manipulation_functions
> So we would like to make sure we stay as coordinated as possible (to avoid what has happened in the past, for instance functions being added to XPath that were already in XForms, but with a slightly different name or semantic.)
> Best wishes,
> Steven

Received on Friday, 20 November 2020 17:47:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 November 2020 17:47:58 UTC