- From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:49:28 -0700
- To: u.n.l@gmx.net
- Cc: raman@google.com, boyerj@ca.ibm.com, www-forms@w3.org
AHA --- I knew that once in a way someone would agree with me on AVTs:-) Ulrich Nicolas Lissé writes: > Yes, I'd prefer to use AVTs rather than to introduce new markup which > tends to bloat. > > I even don't see a Pandora's box of processing questions open as John > stated: It should be clearly stated when these AVTs are evaluated and in > which context (like it is for any other XPath expression in XForms). > > AVTs occurring in non-XForms-markup are not the XForms processor's cup > of tea. The latter might be dissatisfying to form authors attempting to > use AVTs in XHTML markup but they can't use XPath expressions there too. > So this is no point against introducing AVTs to XForms in my eyes. > > Regards, > Uli. > > T.V Raman wrote: > > > > I've said this too many times in the last few years, so once more > > wont hurt :-) > > > > Re: dynamic attributes -- they're a good thing. I believe the way > > they should be introduced into technologies like XForms and XHTML > > is via Attribute Value Templates e.g. <foo bar="{expression}"/> > > -- rather than on a case-by-case basis into a given XML > > vocabulary. > > > > > > Ulrich Nicolas Lissé writes: > > > > > > John, > > > > > > I just thought of having dynamic attribute(s) on xf:dispatch too. I > > > think this issue already popped up on the list but frankly speaking I'm > > > just to lazy to search the archives right now. > > > > > > However, I think it would be most useful having either @name or @target > > > or both attributes being computed by XPath expressions. I think @target > > > is the more interesting case, just like for xf:setfocus/@control and > > > xf:toggle/@case. > > > > > > Best, > > > Uli. > > > > > > John Boyer wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Ulrich, > > > > > > > > Could you send me a quick note, please, to tell me a little more about > > > > what you want to see for xf:dispatch? > > > > > > > > However, I did understand the part about precedence, and yes it will be > > > > included as we faced the same precedence rule issue when we added > > > > resource as a child of submission. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Ulrich Nicolas Lissé <u.n.l@gmx.net>* > > > > Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org > > > > > > > > 08/18/2006 04:25 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > To > > > > John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA > > > > cc > > > > Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>, www-forms@w3.org > > > > Subject > > > > Re: Can toggle@case or case@selected be calculated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John, > > > > > > > > please include <xf:dispatch/> too. And - just for completeness - don't > > > > forget the precedence stuff (bindings ruling out static attributes ?). > > > > > > > > However, I don't like the sub-markup approach that much. I'd prefer a > > > > @value attribute. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Uli. > > > > > > > > John Boyer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I generally like the type of approach Eric describes in which we use a > > > > > sub-element with a value attribute, where the subelement takes the same > > > > > name as the attribute it controls. > > > > > > > > > > I like it better than ATVs because ATVs open a Pandora's box of > > > > > processing questions, whereas the subelement/@value idea allows us to > > > > > add functionality precisely where it's needed in a way that is easy for > > > > > form authors to grasp and for design environments to recognize. > > > > > > > > > > In this case, though, my proposal on today's telecon was to do a > > > > > spec-ready version of the more specific solution I posted earlier to > > > > > this list, which was to make available a subelement/@value solution for > > > > > setting the case of a toggle action and the control of a setfocus, e.g. > > > > > > > > > > <toggle> > > > > > <case value="concat('case-', some/node)"/> > > > > > </toggle> > > > > > > > > > > <setfocus> > > > > > <control value="concat('control-', some/node)"/> > > > > > </setfocus> > > > > > > > > > > Based on having received the action item to do so on today's telecon, I > > > > > will be making that spec-ready text available to the WG shortly, but the > > > > > solution is so easy that I would not be surprised to see implementer > > > > > feedback even before I finish the formal spec work! Partly because > > > > > XForms just needs to be able to do this (whereas there's a whole > > > > > Pandora's box of issues that this solution happily avoids). > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>* > > > > > Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org > > > > > > > > > > 08/16/2006 11:34 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To > > > > > www-forms@w3.org > > > > > cc > > > > > > > > > > Subject > > > > > Re: Can toggle@case or case@selected be calculated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Klotz, Leigh wrote: > > > > > > Two issues come to mind: > > > > > > 1. Currently @selected it's defined as an xsd:boolean (an enumeration > > > > > of the strings "true", "false", "1", and "0". > > > > > > Unfortunately, "true" isn't an XPath expression that evaluates to > > > > > "true"; that would have to be "true()", so there's not the smooth > > > > > upgrade path that it seems like there might be. > > > > > > > > > > One possible direction, syntactically, would be to use a nested element, > > > > > as we may do for xforms:submission in 1.1. E.g.: > > > > > > > > > > <xforms:case> > > > > > <xforms:selected value="instance('my-instance')/my-value = 3"/> > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > or something like this. Ideally I would prefer attribute value templates > > > > > (post-1.1)but as you point out there is a discrepancy between 'true' > > > > > and true(). > > > > > > > > > > -Erik > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Orbeon - XForms Everywhere: > > > > > http://www.orbeon.com/blog/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Ulrich Nicolas Lissé > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Ulrich Nicolas Lissé > > > > > > > > -- > Ulrich Nicolas Lissé -- Best Regards, --raman Title: Research Scientist Email: raman@google.com WWW: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/ GTalk: raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com PGP: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc Google: tv+raman
Received on Friday, 18 August 2006 22:49:39 UTC