New introduction to XForms 2.0

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

New introduction to XForms 2.0

Steven Pemberton-3
Dear XForms users,

I have rewritten the introduction to XForms for the XForms 2.0 spec and  
would appreciate any comments you might have.

http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/forms/intro.html

I have tried to simplify it. Are there any features that don't get  
mentioned that ought to be?
Are there things mentioned that don't need to be?

Thanks for any help.

Steven Pemberton

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: New introduction to XForms 2.0

Alain COUTHURES
Steven,

I would suggest to add a link to XPath 2.0 Specifications in 2.4.

AVT is a new feature in XForms 2.0 and, because it is very useful (in
calculated styling, for example), could it be presented in the introduction?

Thanks!

-Alain

Le 12/02/2014 17:34, Steven Pemberton a écrit :

> Dear XForms users,
>
> I have rewritten the introduction to XForms for the XForms 2.0 spec
> and would appreciate any comments you might have.
>
> http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/forms/intro.html
>
> I have tried to simplify it. Are there any features that don't get
> mentioned that ought to be?
> Are there things mentioned that don't need to be?
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Steven Pemberton
>
>


Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: New introduction to XForms 2.0

Erik Bruchez-2
In reply to this post by Steven Pemberton-3
Steven,

Sorry not to have done this sooner, but I have now reviewed the intro.
My comments/corrections below:

1. This might be personal, but I don't like much the use of "XForm" as
a countable thing, as in "an XForm", "some XForms". I would prefer
talking about a "form", and "some forms", as it is clear what we are
talking about here.

2. I am not sure that it helps to mention "Experience has shown […]
order of magnitude". I would rather leave this out (or that would call
for a "citation needed"), as whether true or not it does sound like a
marketing message.

3. Typo: "manipulted → "manipulated".

4. `<itemset nodeset="...">`: should now be `<itemset ref="...">`.

5. "As the name suggests": not sure how the name suggests "Web" forms?
To me it would suggest "XML" forms ;)

6. A big issue with XForms 1.1 and earlier is how you deal with
calculations on currency values, as there was no decimal type (answer:
they work on doubles and produce funny results at times). So in the
example that shows `calculate="../unitprice * ../howmany"`, there
should be a `bind` assigning a `decimal` type to `unitprice`. This is
now possible out of the box with the use or XPath 2 and type
annotations.

That's it for now!

-Erik

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Steven Pemberton
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear XForms users,
>
> I have rewritten the introduction to XForms for the XForms 2.0 spec and
> would appreciate any comments you might have.
>
> http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/forms/intro.html
>
> I have tried to simplify it. Are there any features that don't get mentioned
> that ought to be?
> Are there things mentioned that don't need to be?
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Steven Pemberton
>

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: New introduction to XForms 2.0

John Boyer
Hi guys,

I'd suggest rolling the "essential properties" into the benefits summary. They don't fully characterize XForms, and they read like the other benefits.

In particular, the second essential property could be softened and reworded. Copy pasting it says "The controls no longer explicitly say what they look like, but what they do." The reader who hasn't been doing XForms for a decade will say that most controls don't say what they look like, that's what CSS does.

So, these essential points are incomplete but also don't form a higher level "elevator pitch" for XForms, which should
1) characterize it succinctly,
2) have a highly resonant reason why the reader should care, and
3) follow the rule of 3.

Cheers,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
IBM Distinguished Engineer & IBM Master Inventor
@johnboyerphd | [hidden email]




From:        Erik Bruchez <[hidden email]>
To:        Steven Pemberton <[hidden email]>,
Cc:        "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, Forms WG <[hidden email]>
Date:        02/18/2014 04:50 PM
Subject:        Re: New introduction to XForms 2.0
Sent by:        [hidden email]




Steven,

Sorry not to have done this sooner, but I have now reviewed the intro.
My comments/corrections below:

1. This might be personal, but I don't like much the use of "XForm" as
a countable thing, as in "an XForm", "some XForms". I would prefer
talking about a "form", and "some forms", as it is clear what we are
talking about here.

2. I am not sure that it helps to mention "Experience has shown […]
order of magnitude". I would rather leave this out (or that would call
for a "citation needed"), as whether true or not it does sound like a
marketing message.

3. Typo: "manipulted → "manipulated".

4. `<itemset nodeset="...">`: should now be `<itemset ref="...">`.

5. "As the name suggests": not sure how the name suggests "Web" forms?
To me it would suggest "XML" forms ;)

6. A big issue with XForms 1.1 and earlier is how you deal with
calculations on currency values, as there was no decimal type (answer:
they work on doubles and produce funny results at times). So in the
example that shows `calculate="../unitprice * ../howmany"`, there
should be a `bind` assigning a `decimal` type to `unitprice`. This is
now possible out of the box with the use or XPath 2 and type
annotations.

That's it for now!

-Erik

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Steven Pemberton
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Dear XForms users,
>
> I have rewritten the introduction to XForms for the XForms 2.0 spec and
> would appreciate any comments you might have.
>
>
http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/forms/intro.html
>
> I have tried to simplify it. Are there any features that don't get mentioned
> that ought to be?
> Are there things mentioned that don't need to be?
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Steven Pemberton
>


Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: New introduction to XForms 2.0

Steven Pemberton-3
In reply to this post by Alain COUTHURES
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:52:51 +0100, Alain Couthures  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Steven,
>
> I would suggest to add a link to XPath 2.0 Specifications in 2.4.

Done.

> AVT is a new feature in XForms 2.0 and, because it is very useful (in  
> calculated styling, for example), could it be presented in the  
> introduction?

Done.

Thanks!

I will send a message when the new version is up.

Steven

> Thanks!
>
> -Alain
>
> Le 12/02/2014 17:34, Steven Pemberton a écrit :
>> Dear XForms users,
>>
>> I have rewritten the introduction to XForms for the XForms 2.0 spec and  
>> would appreciate any comments you might have.
>>
>> http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/forms/intro.html
>>
>> I have tried to simplify it. Are there any features that don't get  
>> mentioned that ought to be?
>> Are there things mentioned that don't need to be?
>>
>> Thanks for any help.
>>
>> Steven Pemberton
>>
>>
>

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: New introduction to XForms 2.0

Steven Pemberton-3
In reply to this post by Erik Bruchez-2
> 1. This might be personal, but I don't like much the use of "XForm" as
> a countable thing, as in "an XForm", "some XForms". I would prefer
> talking about a "form", and "some forms", as it is clear what we are
> talking about here.

Done
>
> 2. I am not sure that it helps to mention "Experience has shown […]
> order of magnitude". I would rather leave this out (or that would call
> for a "citation needed"), as whether true or not it does sound like a
> marketing message.

It *is* a marketing message :-) I have reworded. See if it helps.

> 3. Typo: "manipulted → "manipulated".

Gone after a simplification.

> 4. `<itemset nodeset="...">`: should now be `<itemset ref="...">`.

Done

> 5. "As the name suggests": not sure how the name suggests "Web" forms?
> To me it would suggest "XML" forms ;)

Well, it is the forms bit that is being suggested...

> 6. A big issue with XForms 1.1 and earlier is how you deal with
> calculations on currency values, as there was no decimal type (answer:
> they work on doubles and produce funny results at times). So in the
> example that shows `calculate="../unitprice * ../howmany"`, there
> should be a `bind` assigning a `decimal` type to `unitprice`. This is
> now possible out of the box with the use or XPath 2 and type
> annotations.

Done.

Thanks!

Will be live shortly.

Steven.

> That's it for now!
>
> -Erik
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Steven Pemberton
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Dear XForms users,
>>
>> I have rewritten the introduction to XForms for the XForms 2.0 spec and
>> would appreciate any comments you might have.
>>
>> http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/forms/intro.html
>>
>> I have tried to simplify it. Are there any features that don't get  
>> mentioned
>> that ought to be?
>> Are there things mentioned that don't need to be?
>>
>> Thanks for any help.
>>
>> Steven Pemberton
>>

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: New introduction to XForms 2.0

Steven Pemberton-3
In reply to this post by Steven Pemberton-3
Thanks to all who commented.

I have updated it at http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/forms/intro.html

Best wishes,

Steven Pemberton


On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:34:45 +0100, Steven Pemberton  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear XForms users,
>
> I have rewritten the introduction to XForms for the XForms 2.0 spec and  
> would appreciate any comments you might have.
>
> http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/forms/intro.html
>
> I have tried to simplify it. Are there any features that don't get  
> mentioned that ought to be?
> Are there things mentioned that don't need to be?
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Steven Pemberton

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: New introduction to XForms 2.0

John Boyer
Hi Steven,

The preamble is looking good, thanks for the changes.
The one bullet point that is not like the others is "Structured, typed data is supported." It does not communicate the advantage(s) like the others do.
I could recommend something that accentuates submissions and the direct bindings of UI controls and model item properties, like this:

* Structured, typed data is supported. The hierarchical data structures that REST and web services produce and consume are directly consumed and produced by forms, preserving the data structure throughout an end-to-end solution. The form's controls and data model processing constructs bind directly to and operate directly on hierarchical data structures. Although XML is the principal format for this, other transmission formats like JSON and CSV are also supported.

Maybe some further word swizzling could connect "end-to-end solution" with the compatibility of forms, via REST services, with various NoSQL storage solutions, like MongoDB or CouchDB.

Either way, you may even then want to move this first.

Best regards,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
IBM Distinguished Engineer & IBM Master Inventor
@johnboyerphd | [hidden email]




From:        "Steven Pemberton" <[hidden email]>
To:        "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "Steven Pemberton" <[hidden email]>,
Cc:        "Forms WG" <[hidden email]>
Date:        02/24/2014 08:07 AM
Subject:        Re: New introduction to XForms 2.0




Thanks to all who commented.

I have updated it at
http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/forms/intro.html

Best wishes,

Steven Pemberton


On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:34:45 +0100, Steven Pemberton  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear XForms users,
>
> I have rewritten the introduction to XForms for the XForms 2.0 spec and  
> would appreciate any comments you might have.
>
>
http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/forms/intro.html
>
> I have tried to simplify it. Are there any features that don't get  
> mentioned that ought to be?
> Are there things mentioned that don't need to be?
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Steven Pemberton


Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: New introduction to XForms 2.0

Erik Bruchez-2
John,

Good points.

Steven, I had another quick pass at the latest version, and I think it
looks pretty good.


-Erik

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:56 PM, John Boyer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Steven,
>
> The preamble is looking good, thanks for the changes.
> The one bullet point that is not like the others is "Structured, typed data
> is supported." It does not communicate the advantage(s) like the others do.
> I could recommend something that accentuates submissions and the direct
> bindings of UI controls and model item properties, like this:
>
> * Structured, typed data is supported. The hierarchical data structures that
> REST and web services produce and consume are directly consumed and produced
> by forms, preserving the data structure throughout an end-to-end solution.
> The form's controls and data model processing constructs bind directly to
> and operate directly on hierarchical data structures. Although XML is the
> principal format for this, other transmission formats like JSON and CSV are
> also supported.
>
> Maybe some further word swizzling could connect "end-to-end solution" with
> the compatibility of forms, via REST services, with various NoSQL storage
> solutions, like MongoDB or CouchDB.
>
> Either way, you may even then want to move this first.
>
> Best regards,
> John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
> IBM Distinguished Engineer & IBM Master Inventor
> @johnboyerphd | [hidden email]
>
>
>
>
> From:        "Steven Pemberton" <[hidden email]>
> To:        "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>,
> "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "Steven Pemberton"
> <[hidden email]>,
> Cc:        "Forms WG" <[hidden email]>
> Date:        02/24/2014 08:07 AM
> Subject:        Re: New introduction to XForms 2.0
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Thanks to all who commented.
>
> I have updated it at http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/forms/intro.html
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Steven Pemberton
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:34:45 +0100, Steven Pemberton
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Dear XForms users,
>>
>> I have rewritten the introduction to XForms for the XForms 2.0 spec and
>> would appreciate any comments you might have.
>>
>> http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/forms/intro.html
>>
>> I have tried to simplify it. Are there any features that don't get
>> mentioned that ought to be?
>> Are there things mentioned that don't need to be?
>>
>> Thanks for any help.
>>
>> Steven Pemberton
>
>

Loading...