Re: [XForms 1.1] i18n comment: Reference to definition of data types missing (PR#7)

Hi Felix,

The working group considered this issue and decide to leave the datatype
definitions in the XForms namespace for three reasons.  First, XForms is based
on XML Schema 1.0, so new types will be added to a future version of XForms when
an updated version of XML schema is adopted.  Second, datatypes in the XForms
namespace are more convenient for form authors because they do not have to be
namespace qualified in 'type' MIPs.  Third, the XForms versions actually are
differeent because they also permit empty strings, which is also more convenient
for form authoring.

Generally, the latter two reasons are particularly important as they explain why
all the xsd simple types have corresponding xforms datatypes.  XML schema has
the mindset of validating a "full" schema instance, i.e. data that is about to
be processed by a server-side business process.  This is a bit of a
technological mismatch for forms, which describe the process for getting from
"empty" schema instance to "full" schema instance.

I hope you find this rationale satisfactory.

Best regards,
John Boyer

> 
> Comment from the i18n review of:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xforms11-20070222/
> 
> Comment 2
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0704-xforms11/
> Editorial/substantive: S
> Location in reviewed document:
> 5.2.3 and 5.2.4
> Reference to definition of data types missing
> 
> Comment:
> 
> The data types
> dateTimeDuration
>   and
> yearMonthDuration
>   are described as XForms data types, but they are data types defined in the
> XQuery Data Model [http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xpath-datamodel-20070123/]
>   specification. Please provide a reference to this specification from sec.  
> 5.2.3 and 5.2.4. See also the
> related comment from the XML Core WG  
> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007Mar/0007.html]
> , which is basically the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 21:58:03 UTC