Re: XForms 3.2.2 Linking Attributes [Re-send]

[The first copy of this email was sent to:<A HREF="mailto:steven.pemberton@cwi.nl">steven.pemberton@cwi.nl</A>, <A HREF="mailto:www-forms-editors@w3.org">
www-forms-editors@w3.org</A>    
CC: <A HREF="mailto:www-svg@w3.org">www-svg@w3.org</A>, <A HREF="mailto:www-forms@w3.org">www-forms@w3.org</A>, <A HREF="mailto:xforms@yahoogroups.com">xforms@yahoogroups.com</A>]

Steven,

Thanks for the prompt reply so soon after your return from vacation.

I am copying this reply to www-svg since the design approach you allude to 
may have implications for a possible SVG and XForms Profile at a future date.

In a message dated 27/08/2002 16:59:32 GMT Daylight Time, 
steven.pemberton@cwi.nl writes:


> > 2. If the [src] attribute has XLink-compliant behaviour why isn't it in
> the XLink
> > namespace with XLink attribute names?
> 
> Since XLink makes syntactic restrictions on markup using it (only one URL
> per element) it makes it very difficult for markup like XForms, that is
> designed to be integrated into other languages, to use it, since there is 
> no
> way of knowing a priori if any potential host language already has URIs on
> relevant elements, or requires other URIs on elements being integrated into
> it.

I would like to be significantly clearer about which "problem" the proposed 
"solution" actually addresses.

If I read your comment correctly, some other language has implicit 
significant design constraints on XForms. Is that a fair conclusion? I don't 
recall that being clearly stated in the XForms WD. Perhaps it should be?

Which languages, current or future, require more than one URI on an XForms 
element? To achieve which functionality? Would an XLink extended link provide 
the "missing" functionality?

Which XForms elements depend on more than one URI being present on an element 
in a host language? In passing, how does bypassing XLink on the XForms 
element affect the presence of zero, one or more URIs on an element in a host 
language? This seems to me, at first sight, to be a spurious point but I am 
open to be corrected.

Could you please provide concrete examples of where / when you envisage that 
the points you mention might be a tangible issue for XForms?

Would I be correct in surmising that one possible constraining language is 
XHTML 2.0?

> 
> Therefore to bypass this problem, we use XLink semantic properties, but not
> syntactic properties.
> 
> We anticipate the publication within two weeks of the first public working
> draft of a specification for layering XLink properties onto attributes
> without using the XLink syntax.

This seems unsatisfactory to me. To propose that XForms proceed to Candidate 
Recommendation on the implicit basis of a document which has not yet reached 
first public Working Draft stage seems unwise. It almost suggests that a fait 
accompli is the unstated aim.

As Ann Navarro likely will have informed you there are several unanswered 
questions on a discussion on XML-Dev relating to XLink and XHTML 2.0. I was 
left with the impression that further information would be provided on those 
points on your return from leave. Much of that discussion was bogged down 
because of the absence of a public draft stating the case about supposes 
inadequacies of XLink, perhaps the paper you now refer to.

I know that many will read the document with interest when it emerges. It 
would be a courtesy if you could let www-forms and XML-Dev know when that 
paper is publicly available.

Regards

Andrew Watt