- From: Jim Wissner <jim@jbrix.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:18:41 -0500
- To: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com, www-forms@w3.org
- Cc: xforms@yahoogroups.com
At 04:39 AM 12/12/2001 -0500, AndrewWatt2001@aol.com wrote: >I guess since the XForms WD is almost at Last Call WD it is probably time >to raise an issue which has been niggling me for several versions of the spec. > >I think the division of Purpose / Presentation / Data is a little wooly. > >There are two issues, from my perspective: >1. The examples in Chapter 2 are not ideally structured and need to be >re-drafted >2. I suspect the Purpose / Presentation / Data structure itself may be >fundamentally flawed or redundant > >I feel a little like the wee boy daring to suggest the Emperor has no >clothes, so I hope you will be patient as I try to explain my concerns. > >Let me deal with the more superificial concern first. In the table in >Chapter 2 of the WD under the "Purpose" header we see terms like "Time >Card" and "Order Form". It seems to me that those **in terms of purpose** >(assuming it has its natural meaning) would be more appropriately >expressed as "Collection of worker time data" and "Collection of order >data". That sort of term/phrase is a "purpose", as I understand the term. >Terms like "time card" and "order form" are actually presentations (or >include an element of presentation) in my view. > >When you come to use phrases like those I have suggested under the Purpose >heading you tend to find that it is a litany of "[whatever type of] data >collection". And the data is listed under the Data heading. > >Which brings me to my deeper concern. Is the three way division of Purpose >/ Presentation / Data needed at all? > >For the scenarios which readily come to mind I find the three way division >working out as: >1. Purpose - collecting X data >2. Presentation - [potentially multiple] >- order form on desktop PC >- order form on palm computer etc etc >3. Data - X data (maps usually - always??? - one to one with item 1, >Purpose). > >The obvious scenarios, at least to me, work out as >1 purpose : multiple presentations : 1 set of data >So if purpose and data map one to one do we really need a three way >structure? > >The other possible scenario is: >1 purpose: multiple presentations : multiple sets of data (attenuated for >wee devices) >But is that "one" XForms model at all? Or, when we have multiple sets of >data don't we, when we think about the situation more precisely, have >multiple purposes? > >As an example we might have: >full personal info collection : desktop PC presentation : full personal info >abbrev personal info collection : mobile phone form : abbrev personal info > >Again, in this type of scenario where the purpose (carefully spelled out) >differs the data set seems to move in parallel - again with a one to one >relationship. > >I hope I have been able to express why I have doubts about the current >presentation of Chapter 2 and the underlying structure fairly clearly. If >WG members have scenarios where we have >1 or many purposes : multiple presentations : 1 set of data >then I guess we may actually need the three way Purpose / Presentation / >Data division. > >If not, is simplicity and clarity not better served by a two way >Presentation / Data Model view? > >I would like to suggest that the WG considers that a two dimensional >Presentation / Data Model explanation/structure is more concise and >perhaps better represents the potential advantages which XForms brings to >the Web. > >Andrew Watt I agree that, at the very least, as it is spelled out now there's not a clear need for the 3-way distinction. I would even argue that at least in the example you cited (full personal info, abbrev personal info), they share a common base purpose - info display/collection - as likely all forms will share, and that the distinction between them is relevant primarily in the clients targeted for rendering. I guess you could argue that listing a purpose "abbreviated data collection" is a better, more generic description than saying "this is for a small device." But then it would be nice to see an example of the "purpose axis" with some meaning outside of the "client constraint" category. At the very least I think there is room for clearing up the readability of this section. Jim -- jim@jbrix.org Visit www.jbrix.org for: + SpeedJAVA jEdit Code Completion Plugin + Xybrix XML Application Framework + other great Open Source Software
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2001 11:14:54 UTC