- From: Joern Turner <joern.turner@googlemail.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 21:53:45 +0200
- To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: "www-forms@w3.org" <www-forms@w3.org>
Hi John, thanks for the detailed explanation. In the light of this it makes all perfect sense to me. thanks, Joern On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:04 PM, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi Joern, > > Sure. The idea is that type is only one of a set of MIPs right now that are > already and'd together to produce a validation result, and that trend should > just continue. > While it is feasible for someone to write completely incompatible types, > it's also possible for them to write incompatible constraints, or even to > write one required="true()" and required="false()" for the same node. > > The AND means that a node must be valid according to all available rules, > and if any fail, then the node is invalid. > > So, in the case of type string and integer on a node containing "ABC", the > string check passes, but the integer check then fails, so the node is > invalid. > > We felt it was not a good idea to be restrictive to one type because content > coming from multiple sources might in fact assign exactly the same type, or > they might assign compatible derived types, i.e. one system knows more about > what kind of type the data should take than another. Such is the case above > where one system only knows it needs a string, but another knows it should > be an integer. As soon as you start defining parts of forms that are used > in multiple forms, it is often the case that the part will say something > generic, and the consumer will say something compatible but more specific. > > Cheers, > John M. Boyer, Ph.D. > Distinguished Engineer, IBM Forms and Smarter Web Applications > IBM Canada Software Lab, Victoria > 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: Joern Turner <joern.turner@googlemail.com> > To: John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA > Cc: "www-forms@w3.org" <www-forms@w3.org> > Date: 05/27/2011 07:52 AM > Subject: Re: XForms 1.1 Implementers encouraged to enable multiple > MIP bindings per data node > ________________________________ > > > Dear Working Group, > > i'm considering to implement the proposal below. However i cannot make > any sense out of the proposed AND combinator for the 'type' MIP. What > shall be the meaning in this case? That a node e.g. can be a string > AND an integer at the same time? I'm sure i must have misunderstood > something here. > > Would be happy if you can shed some light on this. > > Thanks > > Joern Turner > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:06 PM, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> Dear Forms Community, >> >> It is a pleasure to inform you that the W3C Forms Working Group recently >> decided upon a default combination mechanism for handling multiple model >> item properties binding to the same data node. For reference, please see >> [1, >> 2] >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/MIPS >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/03/25-forms-minutes.html#res_multimip >> >> For some MIPs like calculate, more than one formula binding does not make >> sense, so the default in that case continues to be an >> xforms-binding-exception. However, for other MIPs, and most notably >> constraint, it is not only possible but also preferable to have a default >> combinator based on the MIP. For example, if more than one constraint MIP >> is applied, then all constraints must be satisfied (true) for the node to >> be >> valid (in fact, this is consistent with current combination processing of >> constraint, required and type MIPs anyway). By comparison, a node would >> be >> readonly if any bind readonly MIP evaluates to true for the node, and this >> is conceptually what already happens in the defaulting mechanism for >> readonly, which makes a node readonly if any ancestor evaluates to true >> even >> if the readonly MIP for the node itself is false. >> >> For these technical reasons and also to promote faster adoption and >> determination of any problems with the approach, the W3C Forms Working >> Group >> also resolved (see [3]) to encourage implementers of XForms 1.1 to proceed >> with relaxing the xforms-binding-exception for selected MIPs and instead >> use >> the default combinators as described in [1]. >> >> [3] >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Apr/att-0002/2010-04-07.html#resolution1 >> >> Best regards, >> John M. Boyer, Ph.D. >> STSM, Lotus Forms >> 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 >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 27 May 2011 19:54:13 UTC