334333 - property("conformance-level") should return "full"

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Core Graveyard :: XForms, defect)

Description

[Allan Beaufour]

We return "basic", which sort of degrades Doron's schema work :)

Comment 1

[Allan Beaufour]

Attachment: Testcase

Comment 2

[Steve Speicher]

Perhaps the complex type schema stuff should be conditionally built and support both basic and full, say: -DXFORMS=10_BASIC ...or something.  Is there plans to support both profiles?  Would be nice to only build basic support for Minimo.

Comment 3

[aaronr]

Maybe this is something that you can bring up with the XForms WG to see what they would recommend as a minimum for 'full' being returned here.  We don't support the full schema spec, so I'd be hesitant to change us to 'full' unless other implementors thought that we were close enough.

Comment 4

[aaronr]

(In reply to comment #2)
> Perhaps the complex type schema stuff should be conditionally built and support
> both basic and full, say: -DXFORMS=10_BASIC ...or something.  Is there plans to
> support both profiles?  Would be nice to only build basic support for Minimo.
> 

We could look into it.  I don't think that the code bloat is that bad between the two (as of now, at least), so it would be more or less a performance decision.  Maybe open an 'enhancement' bug (or lower priority bug) on us to consider this?  Might be a post 1.0 thing to do, too.

Comment 5

[Allan Beaufour]

(In reply to comment #3)
> Maybe this is something that you can bring up with the XForms WG to see what
> they would recommend as a minimum for 'full' being returned here.

Feel free to mail www-forms :)

> We don't support the full schema spec, so I'd be hesitant to change us to
> 'full' unless other implementors thought that we were close enough.

It's not terribly important to me what we return right now, but we are aiming for a "full" implementation, so imho that's what we should return. We support much more schema stuff than Basic anyways.

Comment 6

[Steve Speicher]

(In reply to comment #4)
> Maybe open an 'enhancement' bug (or lower priority bug) on us to
> consider this?  Might be a post 1.0 thing to do, too.

See enhancement bug 335728

Comment 7

[David Bolter [:davidb] (NeedInfo me for attention)]

RIP xforms