Re: Dynamic alerts issue (Managing Validation Error Messages)

> > Could 'value' attribute be added for the alert element (like the one
> > for the output element), if better solution ('if' xpath boolean
> > attribute, dependence on particular constraint) is not possible?
> >
> > Problem 1. I want to hide alert messages before user presses the
> > submit button (there is already 'required' indicator on the screen).
> >
> > Problem 2. Also, I would like to show different messages for
> > example, when data is not entered / is entered invalid / too short /
> > too long / ... .
>Yes, this is a good point. If think we have discussed it in the WG, at
>least informally. What is the right solutions for this? Maybe
>something like:
>1. Authorizing multiple @constraint binds for a same node.
>2. Then you would need a way for xforms:alert to refer to a particular
>    bind.
>Any other idea?

I think xforms:alert should have boolean attribute, too
to handle 'no alerts for new records before submit' and xsd.
Search for 'validation error messages' in archives may remind some ideas.

> > It seems that these problems are not addressed properly in XForms
> > 1.1 working draft.
>I think that the scope for XForms 1.1 is currently fixed.

There was this same argument five years ago against solving this problem :(
I understand that proper solution needs some work. But maybe adding
already familiar attribute here and there will not necessarily break the entire
spec, and will not create implementation problems.

> > Is there a reason why 'output' element is so favored by having
> > 'value' attribute?
>Another good suggestion. I seem to remember that there have been
>discussions to allow @value all over the place in XForms,

label, help, hint, alert? I'm OK with that.
Alert, however, is the only dynamic one in everyday situation.

>but I am not sure of the status of this at the moment.
> I am not sure there is a good reason ;-)

Reducing the size of the forms by third (I've posted an example yesterday),
removing two unnecessary nodes and two unnecessary references for each alert,
keeping ui things within ui... might be a good reason.

I'm not sure there is a good reason for pushing this MVC sphagetti ;-)
If somebody needs model so badly, model can be implied.

> Does anybody remember?


Received on Thursday, 22 February 2007 03:39:32 UTC