On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Csaba Gabor wrote:2. Repetition model. The Draft has a huge amount of space devoted to this, but I haven't been able to think of a single compelling argument for it. Most of the control enhancements such as validation are conveniences, after all, but what they have going for them is that they are very compact. This repetition model is huge and messy and there are simple javascript programming methods that allow you to do the same thing. This developer's opinion is that I would far rather roll my own and not even have the possibility of using this construct.
I'd be interested to know what your home-rolled solution would look like. If we can cater for your requirements then we have a flexible model.
Yes, there are already JavaScript alternatives but they are difficult to produce and become even more complex when trying for a cross-browser solution. What I like about the WF2 Repetition Model is that caters for 99% of cases. There will always be edge cases but existing DOM methods, as you say, provide a means for building particular models already. In other words, if you feel that the Repetition Model is inadequate, please specify...
Yeah, several people have said that. We're thinking about removing it. On the other hand, several people have said that it is a godsend and that they are so happy it is there because they are fed up of rolling their own. At the moment it's about equally matched, in fact.
The model is pretty simple and relatively easy to implement, so I'm leaning towards keeping it.
Ian, I thought we'd sorted this out. We had exactly the same discussion a few weeks back and nobody came up with any objections to the current model. I quite like Olav's idea to separate the Repetition Model from the existing WF2 spec. This would give us time to discuss it a bit more without impacting the rest of WF2. Maybe the Repetition Model should be separate anyway? Personally, if I was considering using it on a site, I'd prefer to print off a separate spec to read. But that's just me. I /do/ recognise that this is a bit of an editorial headache however... ;-)
-dean
