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

View: New views

3 Messages — Rating Filter: Alert me

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

by Vlad Trakhtenberg :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

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" ></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.

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

by Steven Pemberton-3 :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

> 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" ></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.

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

by Vlad Trakhtenberg :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

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

"Steven Pemberton" <Steven.Pemberton@...>
Sent by: www-forms-editor-request@...

13/05/2009 08:28

To	Vlad Trakhtenberg/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, www-forms-editor@..., public-forms@...
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 <vladt@...> 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" ></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.