- From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:02:21 -0700
- To: Ulrich Nicolas Lissé <u.n.l@gmx.net>, www-forms@w3.org
- CC: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>
Ulrich Nicolas Lissé wrote: > 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). I agree 100%, this is a non-issue. XSLT too has to define exactly where AVTs can be used. Furthermore, several XForms implementations already implement AVTs and their authors have not reported negatively on this AFAIK. > 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. XForms could allow a host language to use AVTs, and specify a processing model for those. In fact, I think that XForms should do just that in 1.2 or 2.0 (AVTs won't be in 1.1). It doesn't mean that host languages must implement AVTs, just that they may do so. The benefits of AVTs are tremendous, in particular with XHTML. A typical use case is to update the @class or @style attribute on an XHTML element. -Erik -- Orbeon - XForms Everywhere: http://www.orbeon.com/blog/
Received on Friday, 18 August 2006 23:02:39 UTC