- From: Mikko Honkala <honkkis@tml.hut.fi>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:57:58 +0300
- To: "Micah Dubinko" <MDubinko@cardiff.com>, <www-forms-editor@w3.org>
- Cc: "'thierry MICHEL \(E-mail\)'" <tmichel@w3.org>
Micah, this resolves my last call comment in message 18. -mikko > -----Original Message----- > From: www-forms-editor-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-forms-editor-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Micah Dubinko > Sent: 12. huhtikuuta 2002 2:27 > To: 'www-forms-editor@w3.org' > Cc: 'Mikko Honkala (E-mail)'; 'thierry MICHEL (E-mail)' > Subject: RE: Response to Last Call Message 18 > > > Mikko, > > All your comments have been incorporated, with the following notes: > > * In a few places, you ask 'is this the same as the DOM event XX?' > The general answer is no, since we don't require a DOM > implementation to be > present. We have been given clearance to create all new events. > That's also > why we have the xforms prefix on all the events. > > * Regarding events xforms-refresh, xforms-revalidate, and > xforms-recalculate, you comment that your implementation always keeps the > everything refreshed, revalidated, and recalculated, making these events > unnecessary. > > These events are needed because they actually define what it means to > refresh, etc. > > Also at one point, we intended to make it possible to limit the amount of > refreshing, recalculating, etc. done on small devices by > listening for these > events and stopping them from reaching. (We probably need to make > the XForms > Actions <refresh>, etc. do their job without sending an event for this to > work, however) > > > I hope this is sufficient to resolve your Last Call request. > > Thanks, > > .micah > > Original Message: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2002Feb/0004.html >
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 01:58:46 UTC