W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > July 2013

ACTION-1933 - Suggest spec text for MIP functions

From: Erik Bruchez <erik@bruchez.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 15:29:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAc0PEUZG85DxRO_PtvV3T3+a3dyDfbLFhvy_+kGtYSc86sc2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-forms@w3.org, "public-xformsusers@w3.org" <public-xformsusers@w3.org>
All,

In response to this action item, I have written the spec text for the
relevant() function:

Text:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XPath_Expressions_Module#The_relevant.28.29_Function

Diff:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/index.php?title=XPath_Expressions_Module&diff=3821&oldid=3820

Since the text fo the required() and readonly() functions should be
very similar, I wanted to solicit feedback on relevant() first.

I have also updated the text of the valid() function to deal with
XPath items in general:

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/index.php?title=XPath_Expressions_Module&diff=3820&oldid=3804

I have the following open questions:

1. What should the default return values be when there are no selected items?

Currently: valid() says true(), relevant() says false(). What makes
sense? Or could we return an empty sequence in that case?

2. valid() and attributes

<price type="bar">10.42</price>
<bind ref="price" type="xs:decimal"/>
<bind ref="price/@type" constraint=". = 'a' or . = 'b'"/>

=> valid(price) returns false()

Are we happy with that? Should we allow another option to validate a
node without recursion? We have that in our implementation.

Feedback welcome,

-Erik
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 22:30:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:09 UTC