On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:44:33 +0100, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So the idea now is that a validator produces an XML representation of > itself, which could be a simple as it's definition translated to the > "fi:" namespace. > > E.g. > > <fd:field id="foo" required="true"> > <fd:datatype base="integer"/> > <fd:validation> > <fd:range min="1" max="10"/> > </fd:validation> > </fd:field> > > would produce > <fi:field id="foo"> > <fi:datatype type="integer"/> > <fi:validation> > <fi:required> > <fi:range min="1" max="10"/> > </fi:validation> > </fi:field> > > It's then the job of the presentation XSLs to transform <fi:range> into > something useful. > > Only those validators where a client-side implementation is possible > would produce an XML fragment in the <fi:validation> element. > > WDYT? IMHO the idea to move the <fi:required/> tag inside <fi:validation> it's conceptually better than leaving it as attribute of field tag. However "required" it's always a validation concept. -- bye, Luca Garulli www.Pro-Netics.com (member of Orixo.com - The XML business alliance) OrienTechnologies.com - Light ODBMS, All in one JDO solution
