These are the collected Last Call comments on XForms 1.0 Second Last Call WD that were sent to the XForms mailing list (www-forms-editor@w3.org), and responses to those comments.
Notification of these Last Call responses was sent to all of the commentors and the XForms list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/
| Subject | ID | From | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dynamic
dependencies Editorial. Fixed Accepted-sent-NR |
8/0008 | Paul Prescod (paul@prescod.net) | Wed, Aug 21 2002 |
| Single
select = select1?!
Response: no suitable replacement suggested (already replied) (See reply 8/0030) (See reply 8/0034) Resolved-OK |
8/0009 | Piroumian Konstantin (KPiroumian@protek.com) | Thu, Aug 22 2002 |
| P3P
Accepted.-OK |
8/0016 | Lorrie Cranor (lorrie@research.att.com) | Mon, Aug 26 2002 |
| Error
in behaviour of the copy element
Accepted.-OK |
8/0018 | Jerome Negre (jerome.negre@e-xmlmedia.fr) | Mon, Aug 26 2002 |
| Scoped
resolution of model attribute for binding elements (See also 8/0031)
Accepted.-OK |
8/0020 | Tomayko, Ryan (Ryan_Tomayko@stercomm.com) | Tue, Aug 27 2002 |
| [long]
nested repeats and index()
Good catch. Fix: see message 8/0022 |
8/0021 | Jerome Negre (jerome.negre@e-xmlmedia.fr) | Tue, Aug 27 2002 |
| Re: [long] nested repeats and index() | 8/0022 | Mikko Honkala (honkkis@tml.hut.fi) | Tue, Aug 27 2002 |
| Repeat-*
Attributes Considered Harmful
No. See DTD modularisation. Resolved-OK |
8/0023 | Jerome Negre (jerome.negre@e-xmlmedia.fr) | Tue, Aug 27 2002 |
| "maxOccurs"
oddity
Micah says at F2Fhe can live with this. |
8/0024 | Micah Dubinko (MDubinko@cardiff.com) | Tue, Aug 27 2002 |
| Comments
on pre-CR draft
Editorial. Thanks. |
8/0032 | Francis Yergeau (francois@yergeau.com) | Wed, Aug 28 2002 |
| RE:
XForms WD 20020821 - 2.1 Code Error?
Spec is actually OK Accepted-sent-NR |
8/0044 | Dan Dennedy (DDennedy@digitalbang.com) | Thu, Aug 29 2002 |
| RE:
XForms WD 20020821 - 2.1 Code Error?
Spec is OK |
8/0056 | Martin Plechsmid (Martin.Plechsmid@merlin.cz) | Thu, Aug 29 2002 |
| XForms
WD 20020821 - 3.2.2 What are linking attributes for?
Resolved-sent-NR |
8/0057 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Thu, Aug 29 2002 |
| XForms
WD 20020821 3.3.1 Referencing Schemas - Catch 22?
Wrong. Answered by MD Resolved-sent-NR |
8/0058 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Thu, Aug 29 2002 |
| XForms
WD 20020821 3.3.1 Referencing Schemas - Catch 33?
Wrong. Clarified by Cleary. Resolved-sent-NR |
8/0059 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Thu, Aug 29 2002 |
| 3.3.2
- Need for editing to achieve consistency
Editorial. Thank you. |
8/0061 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Thu, Aug 29 2002 |
| 3.3.3
- The ref attribute
Editorial. Thank you. |
8/0062 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Thu, Aug 29 2002 |
| XForms
WD 20020821 - 3.2.1 - include / XInclude ?
No, it is not XInclude. It is any mechanism used for hosting. See for example M12N XHTML. Resolved-sent-NR |
8/0067 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Fri, Aug 30 2002 |
| XForms
WD 20020821 - 3.2.1 / 3.3.4 Seeming inconsistency
Thanks. Fixed. |
8/0068 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Fri, Aug 30 2002 |
| MustUnderstand
Module - Well I would like to :)
We will explain. See minutes to P.A. FtF Resolved-sent-NR |
8/0070 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Fri, Aug 30 2002 |
| 3.5
- Extension Elements Muddled Thinking and Expression?
We disagree. Resolved-sent-NR |
8/0071 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Fri, Aug 30 2002 |
| maxOccurs
and minOccurs default values
There is a reason and it is obvious from the use case. It shouldn't be expressed in the draft. Resolved-sent-NR |
8/0085 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Fri, Aug 30 2002 |
| 7.8.1
- property() function - version property
We will clarify. |
9/0008 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Tue, Sep 03 2002 |
| What
is an "XForms Processor"?
Editorial. |
9/0009 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Tue, Sep 03 2002 |
| 7.8.1
- property() function - conformance-level
Resolved-sent-NR |
9/0010 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Tue, Sep 03 2002 |
| 8.1.2
and 8.1.3 inconsistency?
Editorial. Thanks. |
9/0019 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Tue, Sep 03 2002 |
| 8.1.7
- range Element
Whichever bound is the more restrictive is used. (Change). |
9/0021 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Tue, Sep 03 2002 |
| Re:
8.1.7 - range Element
see above |
9/0022 | Jerome Negre (jerome.negre@e-xmlmedia.fr) | Tue, Sep 03 2002 |
| Re:
8.1.7 - range Element
see above |
9/0023 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Tue, Sep 03 2002 |
| Aug
21, 2002 Draft
Model thing: sorry. Others. Basic misunderstandings. This stuff goes in the
instance. |
9/0026 | <Markdelanoy@aol.com> | Friday, August 30, 2002 3:12 PM |
| WD-xforms-20020821
section 2.4 inconsistent with 3.2.
Editorial. Thanks. |
9/0032 | Mark Birbeck | Wednesday, August 21, 2002 9:07 PM |
| Accepted.
RE: 8.1.7 - range Element
Accepted-sent-NR |
9/0036 | Mark Seaborne (MSeaborne@origoservices.com) | Tue, Sep 03 2002 |
| 8.1.9
submit/@submission, suggestion
We disagree. Explicit is good, because it continues to work, even if you change the instance. Resolved-sent-NR |
9/0133 | Kurt George Gjerde (kurt.gjerde@intermedia.uib.no) | Wed, Sep 04 2002 |
| 3.2.3
Single-Node Binding Attrs, problem
Good catch. Thanks. |
9/0134 | Kurt George Gjerde (kurt.gjerde@intermedia.uib.no) | Wed, Sep 04 2002 |
| Style
sheets, styling and XForms - need fuller description and better
examples
We're deliberately not defining it. We are deliberately separating style from content. Please see CSS for details. Resolved-sent-NR |
9/0135 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Wed, Sep 04 2002 |
| Appendix
G - Non-XHTML Examples needed
We will be adding an svg example. Accepted-sent-NR |
9/0136 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Wed, Sep 04 2002 |
| 9.3.3
- dynamically dynamic or coding error?
You have misunderstood; the example is indeed correct, but we shall clarify it with a better choice of names in the instance. Resolved-sent-NR |
9/0143 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Wed, Sep 04 2002 |
| 9.3.3
- Code Example Again
Change 'similar to' to 'such as' Accepted-sent-NR |
9/0146 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Wed, Sep 04 2002 |
| 9.3.6
Accepted. Already fixed. |
9/0148 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Wed, Sep 04 2002 |
| 7.7.5
index() function
Accepted. Already fixed. |
9/0149 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Wed, Sep 04 2002 |
| Possible
Errata
Dude! Awesome! Thanks! |
9/0150 | "Grant Husbands" <w3c-xforms@grant.x43.net> | Wednesday, September 04, 2002 6:10 PM |
| 9.3.8
- "data instance" etc
Thanks. Accepted-sent-NR |
9/0151 | AndrewWatt2001@aol.com | Wed, Sep 04 2002 |
| Additional
Errata
1. Accepted. Fixed 2. Awaiting M12N-S Resolved-OK |
9/0152 | Grant Husbands | Wednesday, September 04, 2002 6:46 PM |
| 10.1.8
Schema mismatch (trivial issue)
Fixed. |
9/0153 | "Grant Husbands" <w3c-xforms@grant.x43.net> | Wednesday, September 04, 2002 7:20 PM |
| format
attribute on output
Thanks |
9/0155 | bhanu (bhanu_k@hotmail.com) | Wed, Sep 04 2002 |
| xforms-help
and xforms-hint
Thanks Accepted-sent-NR |
9/0156 | bhanu (bhanu_k@hotmail.com) | Thu, Sep 05 2002 |
| ...Issue
47...
Thanks Accepted-OK |
9/0158 | Klotz, Leigh (Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com) | Thu, Sep 05 2002 |
| Deleted
item paradox?
This is not a problem: 'required' says that a node must have a value of length > 0, but not that the node must exist. To also ensure that a node exists, use e.g. minOccurs="1". Resolved-sent-NR |
9/0164 | paul@prescod.net | Thu, Sep 05 2002 |