- From: Jan J Kratky <kratky@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 07:53:51 -0400
- To: www-forms@w3.org
- Cc: w3c-forms@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF5FDAAB4E.585F4938-ON852571D4.00411D13-852571D4.00415AFC@us.ibm.com>
(Reposting, as my earlier post got placed in another thread ... ) Looking at the current normative schema for XForms [1], there appear to be some omissions regarding the xforms:mustUnderstand attribute and the xforms:extension element. @mustUnderstand -- the specification text states that the mustUnderstand attribute can appear on ANY element [2], whether in the XForms namespace or not. However, nowhere does the XForms schema mention the xforms:mustUnderstand attribute. If the mustUnderstand attribute is to be permitted on any XForms element, the Common attribute group seems the natural place for its definition. Note that the current definition of the Common attribute group permits only those attributes that are from a foreign (non-XForms) namespace [3], which means that any document containing an xforms:mustUnderstand attribute on an element in the XForms namespace be considered invalid by the normative schema. Does anyone object to the addition of the (optional) mustUnderstand attribute to the Common attribute set? Or was the actual intent behind this attribute to enforce understanding of extensions, meaning the spec text should be amended to allow the xforms:mustUnderstand attribute only on xforms:extension elements and elements from the host language? extension -- the specification text is somewhat vague on where the xforms:extension element is permitted [4]. However, it seems clear that the extension element can be embedded as a child of at least some XForms elements, as the spec contains a source example [5] in which extension appears as a child of xforms:input. However, this example will fail validation against the schema, since neither xforms:input nor any other element in the XForms namespace (except those few -- instance, value, and extension itself -- that permit xsd:any of any namespace as a child) allow xforms:extension as a child element. Does anyone disagree that extension should be permitted as a child of *any* XForms element? What about as a child of elements (i.e. setvalue) whose content models currently do not permit other elements as children? Are multiple extension elements permitted as a child of the same XForms element? Can the extension element appear anywhere in the sequence of child elements? (It's getting clearer why this issue was not addressed in the current schema :-) ... in fact, there's a comment in the schema which implies that xforms:extension was referred to in at least a couple of places, but then removed. Anyone have any history on why/how that may have happened?). Thanks, Jan References: [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2002/XForms-Schema.xsd [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/index-all.html#module-mustUnderstand [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/index-all.html#structure-attrs-common [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/index-all.html#module-extension [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/index-all.html#structure-extension
Received on Thursday, 24 August 2006 11:54:09 UTC