- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:11:57 +0000 (UTC)
- To: ajvincent@juno.com
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 ajvincent@juno.com wrote: > > editable="editable" doesn't seem so ugly; it's a similar attribute value > to those XHTML 1.0+ defines. Yeah, they're ugly too. :-) > Section 3.4, the add button should probably be in a > <tfoot><tr><td>...</td></tr></tfoot> section. It could. I think that would confuse the example a bit though so I'll leave it as is for now. > Section 4: Are additional events needed for adding and subtracting rows > from a repeat template, or for moving a repetition block? You have the > DOM 2 mutation events for altering the document, and the click event for > the add/remove/move buttons. But for the repeat template itself, > perhaps it would be appropriate to dispatch events there too, and have > the template's default event listener for those events be the methods > you describe. Interesting idea. I'll look into it. > You might want to prefix the events introduced with "XFormsBasic". > Consider DOM 2 Events, which added several events (notably mutations), > all of which were prefixed with "DOM". I did consider this, but as this is intended to work in an XHTML context, I think it would look a bit odd. > You mention namespaces a couple times; this specification should define > its own namespace, probably, or use the XForms namespace. It uses the XHTML namespace. I do not want to require that authors declare two namespaces just to write Web pages. > Section 5.3, "The message entity is an XML 1.1 document..." This is, > imho, a very bad idea. It should allow XML 1.0 as well! (Note that XML > 1.1 support in many web applications will not be available right > away...) 1.1 support should be available by the time this spec becomes widely used. (It is trivial to upgrade a 1.0 parser to 1.1.) The point is to limit the possible outputs as much as possible so that the job of parsing the result is very easy. > Also, what if there ever is an XML 1.2? What about it? A new version of this spec could be released to address this, if needed. Thanks for your feedback! -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL U+1047E /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 07:12:34 UTC