Re: Because type is for datatype, there should not be a problem for XForms Basic

Hi Allan,

By context, I mean the XForms recommendation, specifically Section 6.1.1, 
which is the
one we are going 'round and 'round discussing the meaning of.  I cannot 
see how that
was unclear in my last email on this thread.

You picked one sentence and took a meaning of it that is out of context of 
and therefore
contradicts two statements in the same section.  One is very description 
of the type MIP 
just a few sentences above, and the other is the immediate sentence 
afterward that clearly 
illustrates the fallacy of believing the "equivalence" of type and 
xsi:type.

So, I'm left wondering why we are still going back and forth about this. 
The only way to get pure
black and white is to have a perfect process.  There isn't one, so we have 
to deal with
a little ambiguity, but frankly there isn't even much of that in this 
case.  I'm all for *wanting*
to add a feature that does a better job of validation beyond character 
string data, but wanting it 
or thinking it's better or having missed it in the main description and 
normatively referenced 
definitions doesn't mean it's there in XForms 1.0.  I don't want to 
dispute whether it may be the 
best for XForms going forward because this conversation was, I thought, 
about what exists now 
in 1.0.

Finally, to your last point, I believe that you *can* assign a complex 
type using the type
MIP.  It's just that what you get from that assignment is the datatype 
validation associated
with that complex type.  From my perspective, this isn't *rushing* to a 
conclusion as you
insinuate.  I've been on this conclusion for a good three years now due to 
the wording
of the spec.  But because our full testing cycle includes 'invalid' cases, 
I wondered 
whether anyone else was just passively ignoring bad assignments to 
elements with
element children.

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> 
05/08/2006 03:23 AM

To
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
cc
www-forms@w3.org
Subject
Re: Because type is for datatype, there should not be a problem for XForms 
Basic






On 5/5/06, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> And the interpretation you give takes on two contradictions when put in 
context.

I try to make my context "XForms". Which two contradictions are you
referring to?

> Finally, the interpretation of the type MIP as datatype validation only 
means goodness for XForms basic.

Leigh raised that issue almost two years ago. I see no point in
suddenly rushing for a specific interpretation because it means
goodness for XForms Basic. I would rather have a good solution that we
can all agree to.

I think that it makes sense to be able to apply complex types with
<bind type"..."/>.

--
... Allan