- From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:39:15 -0700
- To: Philipp Wagner <news@philipp-wagner.com>
- Cc: "www-forms@w3.org" <www-forms@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF83A706BD.116A4F5C-ON8825760F.00752B55-8825760F.007C72E3@ca.ibm.com>
HI Philipp, It is no bug in the FF plugin. Also, the spec does not need clarification. The configuration of using mediatype with the value attribute is explicitly not supported by the specification. The mediatype attribute helps an output control to determine how to render data obtained from the single node binding only. This is necessary because the XForms data model provides the additional expressivity needed to pull off the feature correctly (via the type model item property in this case). The value attribute is only capable of providing a string of text. It is not possible currently to indicate that the string is a base 64 encoding of the image or a URL to be dereferenced, or what have you. The correct way to activate the feature would be like this: <xf:model ... namespace declarations ...> <xf:instance> <myData xmlns=""> ...  </myData> </xf:instance> <xf:bind nodeset="myPicture" type="xsd:anyURI" /> ... </xf:model> ... <xf:output ref="myPicture" mediatype="image/*"> ... </xf:output> So, it's not that the feature isn't there. It's just that the feature is activated via different markup. In this situation, a particular implementation has added/supported a custom alternative markup pattern. I hesitate to call it an "extension" because usually that term is reserved for things which are not otherwise achievable by the specification. While it is usually the case that one reports a bug when something doesn't appear, in this case the implementation should receive a bug report because the image does appear when the value attribute is used to provide an image filename. This is necessary in order to avoid creating exactly this kind of confusion across implementations, and it also helps to ensure that the correct markup pattern is used to activate the feature in a way that is interoperable across implementations. Finally, hopefully with the connection to data, it might be clearer why this mechanism is preferable to just using an img tag. One can change the data node, e.g. with a setvalue action or with a web service result, and the image rendered by the output will change as a result. Cheers, John M. Boyer, Ph.D. STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications Chair, W3C Forms Working Group Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software IBM Victoria Software Lab E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer Blog RSS feed: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw From: Philipp Wagner <news@philipp-wagner.com> To: www-forms@w3.org Date: 08/11/2009 02:11 PM Subject: xf:output, @mediatype and @value Hi, recently Mozilla XForms got a bug report [1] that the following is not working: <xf:output mediatype="image/png" value="'xml.png'"/> Expected behavior was displaying the image. The real use case for this remains unclear (you could just use a html:img in that case or whatever the host language provides you to display images). While the fix is straightforward, a question remains: Are we always supposed to treat @value as anyURI if @mediatype is set to "image/*"? Orbeon seems to do this for at least this case as well [2]. Are there other cases where we should/could make such an assumption? A clarification would be greatly appreciated. Philipp [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507621 [2] http://www.orbeon.com/ops/doc/reference-xforms-guide#xforms-image-mediatype
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 22:40:01 UTC