RE: Review of XForms working draft

Giles,

Thanks for your time and feedback.

on 1) - I believe you are correct. Is this confusing enough that we should
consider just leaving the inclusive/exclusive versions and skip the
abbreviated one alltogether?

on 2) - I like this idea. We will consider something along these lines for
our ongoing research with the XForms Processing Model.

Thanks!

Micah Dubinko
Co-editor, W3C XForms Working Group

-----Original Message-----
From: Giles Cope [mailto:gec@hyperoffice.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 4:37 AM
To: www-forms@w3.org
Subject: Review of XForms working draft


1. 'max' for Number should be short for maxInclusive not maxExclusive
   (and 'min' respectivly).

2. In 9.4: 
   We do need a syntax to work on multiple models but,

	<xfm:textbox ref="instance::b/orderForm/shipTo/firstName">
   
   but we loose the idea of the current context using this syntax, 
   and have to specify everything from the root.

   We need something like:

	<xfm:textbox ref="instance::b./shipTo/firstName">

   but obviously with better syntax. Maybe we could select the current 
	context in the binding element:

	<xfm:bind>
		<xfm:select="orderForm/shipTo/">
			<xfm:bind id="myfirstname" ref="firstName""/>
			<xfm:bind id="myaddresszip" ref="address/zip"/>
		</xfm:select>
	</xfm:bind>

my two cents,
gilescope@yahoo.co.uk
----------------------------------------------------------
"My sole reply," said he, "to that demand
Is action; when a fit request is made
Silence and deeds should follow out of hand."
                          -- Virgil [Canto XXIV, 76]

Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2001 13:27:44 UTC