Re: Draft minutes for 2011-09-28

Hi Leigh,

As a minor correction to the minutes, I wasn't saying that by the time you 
get to sorting a repeat table, it is clear that a function won't work *for 
XPath 1*.

It is *generally* true of XPath 1 that nodesets are considered to be in 
document order, so a function that reorders a nodeset is not guaranteed to 
work in all implementations, even if it does work in some.

But more to the point where the correction is being made, it does not 
matter whether you have XPath 1 or XPath 2, if a repeat nodeset uses a 
function that reorders nodes relative to document order, then this will 
conflict with the use of the repeat index to address into that data to 
perform insert and delete operations, such as for table row addition or 
deletion.  The repeat index indicates the repeat item, which corresponds 
to the table row number as rendered.

To fix this, we would need a way to ask for the repeat item node 
corresponding to the indexed repeat.  With that additional piece of 
information, one could use a count of its preceding-siblings to help 
configure the insert action's "at" attribute setting.  The delete action's 
"at" attribute could be similarly configured, or one could just delete the 
indicated repeat item node.

Cheers,
John




From:   "Leigh L. Klotz, Jr." <Leigh.Klotz@Xerox.com>
To:     public-forms@w3.org
Date:   09/28/2011 09:09 AM
Subject:        Draft minutes for 2011-09-28
Sent by:        public-forms-request@w3.org



Please respond with corrections.
Please start new threads for discussion.

[attachment "2011-09-28.html" deleted by John Boyer/CanWest/IBM]