Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Reply-To: <reinhard@apache.org>
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Reinhard_P=F6tz?= <reinhard_poetz@gmx.net>
To: <dev@cocoon.apache.org>
Subject: JXForms/XMLForms
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:12:43 +0200
Message-ID: <002001c347d8$061a97e0$05506bc2@WRPO>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <3F0EF92D.50202@verizon.net>
Importance: Normal


From: Christopher Oliver

> I think it would be easiest to move it to its own block. Then 
> we could 
> deprecate XMLForm and those who are using it won't get 
> broken. I'm not 
> sure how you would merge it with the XMLForm block, anyway. If making 
> JXForms its own block is ok, then I can do that. Otherwise, I don't 
> think I'll be able to spend time merging it with XMLForm.

>From a **Forms user's point of view there are following points
interesting:

   - the syntax how to describe the form  
     --> different
   - validation rules (schematron)
     --> should be the same
   - the controller
     --> the BIG difference

All other things shouldn't be of much interest for them. So I'm fine
with making
the XMLForms block a "deprecated" block and create a new one without the
XMLFormsTransformer but the JXFormsGenerator/Transformer instead. The
remaining
question is the different syntax which will cause problems if you want
to migrate.

Which implementation uses the "standard" described by the W3C?

The second difference is the controller. I should be possible to use the
Actions framework to control the forms, shouldn't it? I only had a brief
look into the sources ...

What do you think?

Reinhard