Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Marc Portier dijo:
well, I do think it does make sense to go for wi:label
Thinking about it in some abstract terms, we could look at the wd-file as some kind of a class definition, with all of its declared fields as some kind of member-variable declarations
The decision is hard to take. I thought the definition file is related to a form definition. Under this context it is correct to have an accesskey related to the label.
yes.
please understand that if I'm suggesting wi:label en wi:acceskey (and same for Sylvain I persume) we are not suggesting to put this information in another place then the current definition file
this is just pass-through information that is common for all instances, and therefore the suggestion could be to change from wd:label to wi:label in the definition file (and the i18n case with embedded wi:accesskey offers some argumentation if you ask me)
it is the same as having a wi:styling and a wi:group elements inside the template-file
hm, maybe the confusion comes from which value we attach to the action of XML-namespacing.
in my head xml namespaces are mapping to devided semantic domains, saying something like 'this element has meaning inside this context'
so what I am trying to say is that namespaces are not meant IMHO to map onto the created SoC (they often do, but doesn't seem to be a requirement AFAICS).
As such I think that a distinct responsibility/role in the system could include making statements or reacting on statements that are built up of concepts from different semantic domains
or in other words: if the form-designer-role is speaking about design-elements that are shared between all instances, then he probably should do that rather in the wi namespace?
IMHO, allowing to mix namespaces in one XML file is the whole reasoning behind having them in the first place?
just my 2c. (hoping it lowered confusion rather then adding to it) -marc=
however, this 'label' and 'accesskey' stuff rather takes up the equivalent role of 'static' variables that are shared across all instances of the same class.
Another thing is a general datatype repository (similiar like the one in XReports). I thought it is a good idea too, but it must be just as a helper to avoid is write the same datatypes over and over.
hm, just a way to look at it I guess?
:-D
<snip topic="more agreement on wi:accesskey inside wi:label"/>
I prefer wd:accesskey inside wd:label.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
-- Marc Portier http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0116284/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
