- From: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 17:28:26 +0200
- To: "Vlad Trakhtenberg" <vladt@ca.ibm.com>, www-forms-editor@w3.org, public-forms@w3.org
- Cc: "John Boyer" <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Thanks for this comment. The Forms WG has discussed it, and we understand that it may be a bit of an inconvenience for the author, but we believe that the processing rules are easier this way, and the user will get a fairly clear error message. There is no loss of functionality with these rules, so we prefer to keep the rules as they are. Many thanks again. Steven Pemberton For the Forms WG On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:43:17 +0100, Vlad Trakhtenberg <vladt@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to propose to clarify XForms 1.1 Recommendation to say that > the inline content of the xforms instance element is considered to be > provided (in the context of section 3.3.2) if instance element has an > 'elemental' content i.e. has an element child. > Otherwise such benign markup as: > > <xforms:instance resource="http://example.org/testDataURI" > > </xforms:instance> > > or > > <xforms:instance resource="http://example.org/testDataURI" ><!-- you data > goes here --></xforms:instance> > > will cause arguably unnecessary fatal processing error ( > xforms-link-exception) because the provided [non-empty?!] inline content > takes precedence over the resource attribute. > > Thanks, > Vlad Trakhtenberg.
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 15:29:15 UTC