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

Re: XForms 1.1 - repeat relevance & editorial tweaks.

From: Vlad Trakhtenberg <vladt@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:46:21 -0700
To: www-forms-editor@w3.org
Cc: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OFA3A95A2D.AD38808B-ON882575D2.005682A3-882575D2.0056A436@ca.ibm.com>
Thanks for your reply. I accept WG's argumentation and decision. Vlad 
Trakhtenberg.




John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA 
Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org
11/06/2009 08:02

To
Vlad Trakhtenberg/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
cc
public-forms@w3.org, www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-editor@w3.org
Subject
Re: XForms 1.1 - repeat relevance & editorial tweaks.







Hi Vlad, 

Per our verbal discussion, the repeat itself does not get the 
enabled/disabled events because it does not have a single node binding. 

However, each of the implicit groups representing rows of the table would 
receive these events because they do have a single node binding.  And 
those events would bubble up to the repeat. 

Regarding the typo in 8.1.1, it is fixed. 

Regarding the link, it is intended to work when the document is officially 
published by the W3C, so it does not work when the document is placed at 
the working group editorial location. 

Can you please reply to this email to indicate whether you are satisfied 
with the reply or whether you have any further concerns. 

Thanks, 
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
Blog RSS feed: 
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw




From: 
Vlad Trakhtenberg/CanWest/IBM 
To: 
www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-editor@w3.org 
Cc: 
public-forms@w3.org, John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA 
Date: 
03/12/2009 05:13 PM 
Subject: 
XForms 1.1 - repeat relevance & editorial tweaks.



Dear WG, 


Is there a compelling reason for the provision that 
xforms-disabled/enabled event cannot target repeat (4.4.1 -4.4.11) and 
repeat control cannot be relevant or non-relevant (8.1.1)? 

Perhaps a repeat can become non-relevant'(relevant)  and the  
xforms-disabled (enabled ) fire when it does not have any (has at least 
one) relevant repeat items (item)? 

And a couple of minor issues: 

1. Typo in 8.1.1: Second bullet: 
... 
Note: 
Form controls that read or write simpleContent produce this exception 
whenever and as soon as they are bound to an element node that an element 
child node. 

2. The very first link: (not terribly useful ;) 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-xforms11-20090311/  does not work. 

Regards, 
Vlad Trakhtenberg. 
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 15:46:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 11 June 2009 15:47:00 GMT