- From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:34:05 -0700
- To: "Allan Beaufour" <beaufour@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF16D66D37.C1EBB189-ON8825715C.0073F9A3-8825715C.00767A3D@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Allan, Sorry, the problem was that I only read Erik's email, and there were so many arrows next to the content, that I was not sure if it was attributable to you or if you were responding to someone else. Due to the late hour (for me), I did not feel inclined to chase down that detail because I didn't think it would be too offensive not to know exactly who said it. On the separate note regarding your statement to me that "It is _your_ mail that brings the subject back to only concerning the @action." I would say that this is not at all true. The focus for XForms 1.1 has always been on the requirement to solve the problem of providing dynamic action for XForms submission. Adding AVTs for their own sake is not a requirement, but rather a solution that happens to satisfy the above requirement. Another solution that satisfies the requirement employs event context information. The AVT idea is another second implementation that could fulfill the requirement. The problem is that we have previously decided not to add AVTs generally to XForms 1.1 but rather to consider doing so for a future version of XForms. So, adding the AVT in one place now usurps the whole discussion of whether we will even add AVTs in that future version as it could turn out to be a bad idea. I don't know because we haven't fully discussed it. If we add it now, the assumption is that we will expand on that in the future. It also means that in 1.1 we would have to tell people to use an AVT, but it only works in one attribute. So, of course, all working group members can continue to discuss AVTs as much as is desired, except that it means there are less valuable cycles being spent on the action items related to the more timely delivery of XForms 1.1. For my own part, I generally like AVTs as long as we can work out all the details, and they are many. And hopefully those who think of XForms as an enemy of CSS rather than the friend it clearly is will not get more confused by the introduction of such a clearly XSLT-esque feature. John M. Boyer, Ph.D. Senior Product Architect/Research Scientist Co-Chair, W3C XForms Working Group Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software IBM Victoria Software Lab E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com http://www.ibm.com/software/ Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer "Allan Beaufour" <beaufour@gmail.com> Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org 04/26/2006 04:07 AM To John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA cc www-forms@w3.org Subject Re: Support for AVTs in XForms? [WAS: Dynamic @action attribute on xforms:submission] On 4/26/06, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Someone on this thread attributed to me the following: > > >>John mentions that it "keeps coming up over and over and over again.", > > and then responded: > > >> and I think there is a reason. People want to use it... > > That person misinterpreted the word "it". That "someone" and "person" is me. Why not write that? > By "it", I meant that dynamic action attribute comes up over and over again. I've looked at your mail again, and I think that was a fair interpretation. Wrong, obviously, and I am sorry if I misquoted you, but imho with tofu, chances are high for that. > *Then* the discussion of AVTs comes up. > **Then** we remember why AVTs are a Pandora's box. > ***Then*** we discuss using event context. > ****Then**** we forget we had the discussion. Who is "we"? I have a different view of the timeline that _you_ present. I actually started a new thread to distinguish between 1) the use of pro/cons of AVTs in general and 2) specifically AVTs for @action. I see a good and healthy discussion of using AVTs between Joern and Erik. Issues of using AVTs in general, but also for @action (naturally). It is _your_ mail that brings the subject back to only concerning the @action. You point out that there are issues that needs to be solved for AVTs. Yes, correct. That is exactly why we should discuss it here. -- ... Allan
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2006 21:34:16 UTC