Proposed clarification of what constitutes the provision of inline content of the xforms instance

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposed clarification of what constitutes the provision of inline content of the xforms instance

Vlad Trakhtenberg

Hi all,

I would like to propose to clarify XForms 1.1 Recommendation to say that the inline content of the xforms instance element is considered to be provided (in the context of section 3.3.2) if instance element has an 'elemental' content i.e. has an element child.
Otherwise such benign markup as:

<xforms:instance resource="http://example.org/testDataURI" >
</xforms:instance>

or

<xforms:instance resource="http://example.org/testDataURI" ><!-- you data goes here --></xforms:instance>

will cause arguably unnecessary fatal processing error (xforms-link-exception) because the provided [non-empty?!] inline content takes precedence over the resource attribute.

Thanks,
Vlad Trakhtenberg.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed clarification of what constitutes the provision of inline content of the xforms instance

Steven Pemberton-3
Thanks for this comment. The Forms WG has discussed it, and we understand  
that it may be a bit of an inconvenience for the author, but we believe  
that the processing rules are easier this way, and the user will get a  
fairly clear error message.

There is no loss of functionality with these rules, so we prefer to keep  
the rules as they are.

Many thanks again.

Steven Pemberton
For the Forms WG

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:43:17 +0100, Vlad Trakhtenberg <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I would like to propose to clarify XForms 1.1 Recommendation to say that
> the inline content of the xforms instance element is considered to be
> provided (in the context of section 3.3.2) if instance element has an
> 'elemental' content i.e. has an element child.
> Otherwise such benign markup as:
>
> <xforms:instance resource="http://example.org/testDataURI" >
> </xforms:instance>
>
> or
>
> <xforms:instance resource="http://example.org/testDataURI" ><!-- you data
> goes here --></xforms:instance>
>
> will cause arguably unnecessary fatal processing error (
> xforms-link-exception) because the provided [non-empty?!] inline content
> takes precedence over the resource attribute.
>
> Thanks,
> Vlad Trakhtenberg.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed clarification of what constitutes the provision of inline content of the xforms instance

Vlad Trakhtenberg

Thanks for your reply. I accept WG's argumentation and decision. Vlad Trakhtenberg.



"Steven Pemberton" <[hidden email]>
Sent by: [hidden email]

13/05/2009 08:28

To
Vlad Trakhtenberg/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, [hidden email], [hidden email]
cc
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
Subject
Re: Proposed clarification of what constitutes the provision of  inline content  of the xforms instance





Thanks for this comment. The Forms WG has discussed it, and we understand  
that it may be a bit of an inconvenience for the author, but we believe  
that the processing rules are easier this way, and the user will get a  
fairly clear error message.

There is no loss of functionality with these rules, so we prefer to keep  
the rules as they are.

Many thanks again.

Steven Pemberton
For the Forms WG

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:43:17 +0100, Vlad Trakhtenberg <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I would like to propose to clarify XForms 1.1 Recommendation to say that
> the inline content of the xforms instance element is considered to be
> provided (in the context of section 3.3.2) if instance element has an
> 'elemental' content i.e. has an element child.
> Otherwise such benign markup as:
>
> <xforms:instance resource="http://example.org/testDataURI" >
> </xforms:instance>
>
> or
>
> <xforms:instance resource="http://example.org/testDataURI" ><!-- you data > goes here --></xforms:instance>
>
> will cause arguably unnecessary fatal processing error (
> xforms-link-exception) because the provided [non-empty?!] inline content
> takes precedence over the resource attribute.
>
> Thanks,
> Vlad Trakhtenberg.