Last Comment Bug 334333 - property("conformance-level") should return "full"
: property("conformance-level") should return "full"
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
:
Product: Core Graveyard
Classification: Graveyard
Component: XForms (show other bugs)
: Trunk
: All All
: -- normal (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: xforms
: Stephen Pride
Mentors:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xforms-...
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2006-04-17 05:26 PDT by Allan Beaufour
Modified: 2016-07-15 14:46 PDT (History)
3 users (show)
See Also:
QA Whiteboard:
Iteration: ---
Points: ---


Attachments
Testcase (1.04 KB, application/xhtml+xml)
2006-04-17 05:27 PDT, Allan Beaufour
no flags Details

Description Allan Beaufour 2006-04-17 05:26:45 PDT
We return "basic", which sort of degrades Doron's schema work :)
Comment 1 Allan Beaufour 2006-04-17 05:27:36 PDT
Created attachment 218678 [details]
Testcase
Comment 2 Steve Speicher 2006-04-17 12:35:48 PDT
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 2006-04-17 14:00:02 PDT
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 2006-04-17 14:03:18 PDT
(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 2006-04-18 00:03:42 PDT
(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 2006-04-27 13:19:05 PDT
(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] 2016-02-04 12:20:19 PST
RIP xforms

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.