W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms-editor@w3.org > July 2002

2- Response to your issue sent to the XForms WG about the XForms Last Call WD

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:42:47 +0200
Message-ID: <012c01c2370e$34bc4a20$228a608a@inria.fr>
To: Jérôme Nègre <jerome.negre@e-xmlmedia.fr>
Cc: <www-forms-editor@w3.org>


Jerome,
Your issue sent to the W3C XForms WG about the XForms Last Call Working
draft
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xforms-20020118/

Your issue is archived at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2002Jan/0002.html

XForms WG Resolution:

The first of the references describes a need for two instances which
previously needed to be in different models, the cited example could now be
handled by:

<xform:model id="m1">
  <xform:instance id="i1">
   <i:dad>
    <i:son1>value</i:son1>
    <i:son2>value</i:son2>
   </i:dad>
  </xform:instance>

  <xform:instance id="i2">
   <i:mom>
    <i:daughter>value</i:daughter>
   </i:mom>
  </xform:instance>
  <xform:bind ref="instance("i2")/i:mom/i:daughter" calculate="instance
('i1')/i:dad/i:son1"/>
  <xform:bind ref="instance("i1")/i:dad/i:son2" calculate="instance
('i2')/i:mom/i:daughter"/>
</xform:model>

the dependency mechanism will cater for this situation correctly. The
second reference is to an interim response by Micah explaining that his
original use of an id on and instance was incorrect.

In summary, the changes that we have made to support multiple instances
within a model adequately cover the use case described in the last call
comment.
Response archived at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2002JulSep/0074.html
---------------------


Please respond to state that you agree with this Resolution.
Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 10:42:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 June 2009 18:12:11 GMT