W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > June 2009

RE: Node Creation XPath Functions

From: Nick Van den Bleeken <Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:10:18 +0200
To: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>, Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <98F519CDC2FA6146AE00069E9A1D91FD5D37D1B07D@erganix.dc.intranet>
Erik,

Thank you for reviewing these functions.

> Regarding the second argument and XPath 1.0:
>
> * It is clearly less useful without XPath 2.0
> * We could still allow it and restrict it to a node-set (the closest
> XPath 1.0 has to a sequence)
I've added the optional second argument, it is indeed less useful without XPath 2.0, and made it of type node-set. When we are adding support for XPath 2.0 to XForms all places where we use a node-set should be looked at and checked if we want node()* or item()*, but this is indeed a separate issue.

> One thing needs to be precised: when writing xf:element("foobar"), is
> the default namespace used or not?
I changed the text for resolving the namespaces of the qualified names to: "If the qualified name is not of type xs:QName the namespace of the element is resolved using the in-scope namespaces (the in-scope default namespace is used for qualified  names that are unprefixed)"


Regards,

Nick Van den Bleeken
R&D Manager

Phone: +32 3 821 01 70
Office Fax: +32 3 821 01 71
Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com
http://www.inventivegroup.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:public-forms-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Erik Bruchez
> Sent: woensdag 17 juni 2009 19:21
> To: Forms WG
> Subject: Re: Node Creation XPath Functions
>
> Nick,
>
> Looks pretty good to me.
>
> Regarding the second argument and XPath 1.0:
>
> * It is clearly less useful without XPath 2.0
> * We could still allow it and restrict it to a node-set (the closest
> XPath 1.0 has to a sequence)
>
> One thing needs to be precised: when writing xf:element("foobar"), is
> the default namespace used or not?
>
> -Erik
>
> On Jun 15, 2009, at 2:59 AM, Nick Van den Bleeken wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > I wrote down[1] what I meant with XPath functions for creating
> > nodes. It turned out that Orbeon already had two of those and SAXON
> > had another useful function for creating nodes at run time.
> > (The samples are a bit silly because they don't use dynamic element
> > names, but I wanted to keep them simple)
> >
> > Could you please have a quick look at it and give your opinion about
> > these functions. I'm in particular interested in your opinion
> > regarding the pending question at [2].Tthen I can incorporate your
> > comments before the next call?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Nick Van den Bleeken
> > R&D Manager
> >
> > Phone: +32 3 821 01 70
> > Office Fax: +32 3 821 01 71
> > Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com
> > http://www.inventivegroup.com
> >
> >
> > 1: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/Node_%27create%27_functions
> > 2:
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/Node_%27create%27_functions#head-
> 51e8a6007c9180d42acbace078dbdf5c3ee659d0
> >
> >
> >
> > Inventive Designers' Email Disclaimer:
> > http://www.inventivedesigners.com/email-disclaimer
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
> > --
> >
>
> --
> Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
> http://www.orbeon.com/
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> --
>


Inventive Designers' Email Disclaimer:
http://www.inventivedesigners.com/email-disclaimer

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 08:11:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:51 UTC