Well, your request doesn't seem that interesting at the moment, and certainly your strangely hostile tone isn't helping your case in any way; but thanks for the suggestion.
I should note also, though I'm sure you're aware, that it's possible to handle empty template values already, using #if statements; it's not quite as efficient as leaving the template out altogether, but I don't think it's a big performance drain either. -Yaron On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:41 PM, John McClure <[email protected]>wrote: > > > - #info not working in forms - yeah, that's a bug/omission in SF; I guess > no > > one had tried inserting tooltips into forms until now. :) > > It's an OK feature that I'd use if it could be made to work -thanks! > > > - property stuff - it's fine to say something like "a page cannot be > > considered a country unless it has a population specified"; that's what > > mandatory fields are for. But what you seem to be arguing for is > something > > like "a page cannot be considered a country unless it has either a > > population *or* a capital specified". That just seems odd to me, and I > can't > > imagine that there's any corresponding concept in OWL. Unless I'm > > misunderstanding something. > > To take a less childish example, Yoren is not considered an "Educated > Person" only and until Yoren possesses an attribute that indicates an > adequate level of schooling... get it now? To point to mandatory > fields as a viable alternative is to ignore that a "mandatory field" > in an SF form has the SAME EFFECT as specifying a "mandatory class" > for the page. > > I'd agree that this approach is not "conventional" from a perspective > of single inheritance, but the RDF is designed specifically for > multiple inheritance, envisioning exactly what I am doing; and SMW > certainly accommodates multiple inheritance, and I thought that SF > would also. Odd or not, my friend, it's what I am doing, with good > results so far, so it'd be kinda nice if you could appreciate more a > developer creating a sophisticated model who really wants to showcase > SF technology. > > > - "add another" - yeah, it's true that someone could accidentally click > on > > "add another" a bunch of times, and the system should probably ignore all > > but one blank value; I wouldn't call it a "serious problem", but I guess > > that's a matter of opinion. > > Well I don't understand why you'd want to ignore all but one blank > value -- they should ALL be ignored, at the developer's option of > course (via no-null-call). And is this a serious problem? I''ve given > two serious reasons why it's a serious problem IMHO: user confusion > and wasteful processing. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Semantic Forms" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/semantic-forms?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
