- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 03:18:29 +0100
- To: "Nikunj Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
- Cc: "Atom-Protocol Protocol" <atom-protocol@imc.org>, www-forms@w3.org, "Elliotte Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Hi Nikunj, I've worked with APP, and with XForms, but I'm having trouble understanding the issues you're raising. Do you think you could try to break them down a bit, perhaps giving some sample code that you'd like to have working, but it doesn't? For example, I don't understand what you mean when you say you can't render an atom:link as an xhtml:link. Do you mean as xhtml:a? I also can't quite work out what the simpleContent issue that you are referring to; could you explain that a little more? Is it essentially that you can't display a hierarchy of elements in a particular way? Sorry to reply with questions. :) Regards, Mark On 30/05/07, Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com> wrote: > > Elliotte Harold wrote: > > > > Has anyone yet written or started work on an XForms client for APP? I > > googled but didn't find anything. If the space is open I may take a > > crack at it myself. > > > > I think XForms 1.1 would be required since XForms 1.0 does not support > > PUT and DELETE. > > > Apart from the challenges introduced by the event + form model (which by > the way simplify many things in the end), a limitation I find with > XForms in its proposed incarnation (1.1) is that the XForms model is > quite closed ended when it comes to content. It chooses xs:simpleContent > as the basis for producing and displaying form instances. > > A major consequence is that rendering atom:link as xhtml:link is not > going to be supported in the proposed revision. Another consequence is > that the various content models in atom such as atom:title, > atom:summary, atom:content, etc. cannot be rendered meaningfully if > their contents are anything other than text. > > I was very hopeful today when I started investigating creating a simple > browser + XForms based APP client, but quickly realized that without > support for xs:complexContent, I would end up working around the > standard that I might as well wait for the issues to be resolved in the > Forms WG. > > Anyone have more positive experience with XForms for APP? I'd surely > love to know. > > ....Nikunj > > > > -- Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com standards. innovation.
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 02:18:32 UTC