- From: Welsh, Linda B <linda@intel.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:39:35 -0800
- To: "'Michael Earls'" <michael@cerkit.com>, www-forms@w3.org
That was really nice of you to say....Thank you Michael! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Bucsay Welsh <mailto:linda@intel.com> Web Standards & Architecture Team (WSAT) Intel Architecture Labs 503.264.4987 - Desk 503.799.7091 - Cell 503.264.3375 - Fax ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Earls [mailto:michael@cerkit.com] >Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 8:22 PM >To: www-forms@w3.org >Subject: RE: Review of XForms working draft > > >> We might well feel that max-inclusive etc are "too cmplex" >> according to some as yet undefined complexity measure; >> however we are not making things simpler by adding quirks of >> our own that appear "simpler" to us --the rest of the world >> will just remain confused. >> >We mere mortal business implementors do understand the notion >of defaults >and we love shortcuts. We aren't entirely retarded. We're >doing pretty >well adjusting to that complicated wrench that Microsoft threw >at us when >they added the "style" attribute beside the already complicated "class" >attribute. Most of my developers have recovered but I still >have a few who >get mixed up and avoid CSS altogether. (I _am_ joking) > >On a more serious note... > >I want to take this chance to thank each of you for working so >dilligiently >to define what I consider one of the most effective >time-savers a business >web application developer will ever implement. XForms are >what I wish I had >had five years ago. > >It will allow us to finally make a generic UI engine and focus >on what we >are really here to do... our respective business domain >programming. I'm >getting tired of having to re-invent the UI for every new project. >Schema-based programming combined with XForms will certainly >provide a rich >framework for our future development efforts. > >Thanks again and keep up the good work! > >Michael Earls > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "T. V. Raman" <tvraman@almaden.ibm.com> >To: "Micah Dubinko" <MDubinko@cardiff.com> >Cc: <gilescope@yahoo.co.uk>; <www-forms@w3.org> >Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 11:37 AM >Subject: RE: Review of XForms working draft > > >> On 1: I would strongly advocate against our continuing to >> cook up our abbreviated versions of max-inclusive and >> friends. >> I believed this at the FTF --the review comments only >> strengthen this belief. >> >> We might well feel that max-inclusive etc are "too cmplex" >> according to some as yet undefined complexity measure; >> however we are not making things simpler by adding quirks of >> our own that appear "simpler" to us --the rest of the world >> will just remain confused. >> >> >> >>>>> "Micah" == Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com> writes: >> >> Micah> Giles, Thanks for your time and feedback. >> >> Micah> on 1) - I believe you are correct. Is this >> Micah> confusing enough that we should consider just >> Micah> leaving the inclusive/exclusive versions and skip >> Micah> the abbreviated one alltogether? >> >> Micah> on 2) - I like this idea. We will consider >> Micah> something along these lines for our ongoing >> Micah> research with the XForms Processing Model. >> >> Micah> Thanks! >> >> Micah> Micah Dubinko Co-editor, W3C XForms Working Group >> >> Micah> -----Original Message----- From: Giles Cope >> Micah> [mailto:gec@hyperoffice.com] Sent: Tuesday, >> Micah> January 02, 2001 4:37 AM To: www-forms@w3.org >> Micah> Subject: Review of XForms working draft >> >> >> Micah> 1. 'max' for Number should be short for >> Micah> maxInclusive not maxExclusive (and 'min' >> Micah> respectivly). >> >> Micah> 2. In 9.4: We do need a syntax to work on >> Micah> multiple models but, >> >> Micah> <xfm:textbox >> Micah> ref="instance::b/orderForm/shipTo/firstName"> >> >> Micah> but we loose the idea of the current context >> Micah> using this syntax, and have to specify everything >> Micah> from the root. >> >> Micah> We need something like: >> >> Micah> <xfm:textbox >> Micah> ref="instance::b./shipTo/firstName"> >> >> Micah> but obviously with better syntax. Maybe we >> Micah> could select the current context in the binding >> Micah> element: >> >> Micah> <xfm:bind> <xfm:select="orderForm/shipTo/"> >> Micah> <xfm:bind id="myfirstname" ref="firstName""/> >> Micah> <xfm:bind id="myaddresszip" ref="address/zip"/> >> Micah> </xfm:select> </xfm:bind> >> >> Micah> my two cents, gilescope@yahoo.co.uk >> Micah> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Micah> "My sole reply," said he, "to that demand Is >> Micah> action; when a fit request is made Silence and >> Micah> deeds should follow out of hand." -- Virgil >> Micah> [Canto XXIV, 76] >> >> -- >> Best Regards, >> --raman >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> IBM Research: Human Language Technologies >> Phone: 1 (408) 927 2608 >> Fax: 1 (408) 927 3012 >> Email: tvraman@us.ibm.com >> WWW: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/raman >> PGP: http://cs.cornell.edu/home/raman/raman.asc >> Snail: IBM Almaden Research Center, >> 650 Harry Road >> San Jose 95120 > > >
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 14:39:47 UTC