- Original Message -
From: "Torsten Curdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Flow and XMLForm [LONG]
>> I apologize for not crediting you properly.
>I meant the people discussing it on th
On Wed, 22 May 2002 14:32:10 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Torsten,
>
> I guess it depends on what one means by constraint. XForms allows
> constraint dependency rules described using XPath. So if you have
> two fields, "CLASS_RANK" and "CLASS_SIZE" you can (I think) write a
> rule that
On Wednesday 22 May 2002 23:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Torsten,
>
> I guess it depends on what one means by constraint. XForms allows
> constraint dependency rules described using XPath. So if you have two
> fields, "CLASS_RANK" and
> "CLASS_SIZE" you can (I think) write a rule that says "v
> I apologize for not crediting you properly.
I meant the people discussing it on the list... not just me :-)
> > Well, actually my idea was to define validation more expressive so we can
> > even
> >
> > generate client side javascript validations! This should work quite easy
> > if you look
Torsten,
> > > JavaScript client validation improves the user experience quite a bit,
> > > so I think a validation solution should generate both client and
> > > server side validation code.
> That's exactly the goal of the precept idea...
Hmmm... I looked at precept stuff early on, but lik
> > JavaScript client validation improves the user experience quite a bit,
> > so I think a validation solution should generate both client and
> > server side validation code.
That's exactly the goal of the precept idea...
>
>
> > Yes, but that doesn't solve the problem for current browsers
ime to show how interactive forms can be embedded remotely.
Regards,
Ivelin
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: Flow and XMLForm [LONG]
>
> Hello,
>
> > From: "Ovidi
Hello,
> From: "Ovidiu Predescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 10:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Flow and XMLForm
> JavaScript client validation improves the user experience quite a
On Tue, 21 May 2002 00:12:16 -0500, "Ivelin Ivanov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ovidiu Predescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 200
- Original Message -
From: "Ovidiu Predescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ivelin Ivanov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: Flow and XMLForm
> > Just a note in regard to client/server
- Original Message -
From: "Ovidiu Predescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Flow and XMLForm
> > Are suggesting that the flow layer with the addition of some kind
On Mon, 20 May 2002 14:02:30 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Ovidiu,
>
>
> > - why do you need XMLForm when you have flow control? You can do the
> > same things XMLForm does in the flow layer.
>
> > ;)
>
> > Now seriously, I think there's a lot of overlap between the two
> > implementat
Ovidiu,
> - why do you need XMLForm when you have flow control? You can do the
> same things XMLForm does in the flow layer.
> ;)
> Now seriously, I think there's a lot of overlap between the two
> implementations right now.
> What I think we need is a way to describe, using Schematron, just
aturday, May 04, 2002 10:39 AM
Subject: RE: Flow and XMLForm
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi Ivelin,
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:22:55 -0500, "Ivelin Ivanov"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > one of the action items on your
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate!
On Sat, 4 May 2002 17:39:23 +0200, "Daniel Fagerstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi Ivelin,
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:22:55 -0500, "Ivelin Ivanov"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > one of the action
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Ivelin,
>
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:22:55 -0500, "Ivelin Ivanov"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > one of the action items on your list a couple weeks ago was to
> > evaluate the possibility of integration between Schecoon and the
> > XMLForm framework. Have you had t
Hi Ivelin,
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:22:55 -0500, "Ivelin Ivanov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> one of the action items on your list a couple weeks ago was to
> evaluate the possibility of integration between Schecoon and the
> XMLForm framework. Have you had time to do that yet?
I looked at the co
17 matches
Mail list logo
