Yes, agree those examples need to be
Could look at adding value attribute
in more places in future versions, but using output in the message should
be quite good enough for 1.1 (in the sense that "that's what we meant,
if not what we said in every example").
The submission example is already ripe
for change, since it already has the output in the message, so the ref
just needs to be a value attribute instead. The example in the structure
model section needs the output-with-value to be added in lieu of a ref
on the message element itself. Finally, it would be easy to add a
note to the message element section that linked to these two other locations
for further examples, rather than inventing still more examples.
In any case, thanks, that is a good
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 <at> ca.ibm.com
Blog RSS feed: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
||Aaron Reed <aaronr <at> us.ibm.com>
||www-forms <at> w3.org
||11/19/2008 02:08 PM
||Spec examples probably incorrect
I mentioned this to Leigh and Keith, but I figured I'd bring this up to
the whole group, too.
One of our users said that the spec has an example of event() being used
with xf:output in a <at> ref and he was right -> http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#submit-evt-submit-error
which I believe
is incorrect. I also think that the xf:message with event() being
in a <at> ref example under http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#structure-model
is incorrect, too.
Leigh mentioned that perhaps allowing <at> value on a xf:message might not
be a bad idea, especially for reporting errors and I think he is right.
It would be pretty useful. Embedding a xf:output inside the
xf:message isn't exactly difficult, but it might not be quickly thought
of by an author. If we don't go with <at> value on a xf:message, how
putting an example of embedding a xf:output inside a xf:message inside
the message section of the spec?