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

Hi Felix,

This does not seem at all necessary to require a non-normative reference 
to a spec whose definition of a datatype came after our own definition of 
the datatype and furthermore whose datatype is not equal to our own and 
not in our namespace for that reason. We really need to shut the spigot on 
changes so XForms 1.1 can get to the call for implementations (CR), which 
this issue would not affect in any case because it is four-years-old 
feature.

John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> 
Sent by: www-forms-editor-request@w3.org
10/21/2007 10:07 PM

To
John Boyer <xforms-issues@mn.aptest.com>
cc
www-forms-editor@w3.org
Subject
Re: [XForms 1.1] i18n comment: Reference to definition of data types 
missing (PR#7)







Hi John,

Sorry if I made myself not clear: I was asking for a reference to an 
XQuery specification, not for changing the namespace of the XForms 
definitions. I'm especially convinced to not use the XML Schema 
namespace by your third reason: the empty strings allowed by the XForms 
versions. Nevertheless, I still think a non-normative reference to 
XQuery with the explanation about the differences (like you provided 
below) would be helpful.

Felix

John Boyer wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>