- From: Jérôme Nègre <jerome.negre@e-xmlmedia.fr>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:26:46 +0100
- To: <www-forms@w3.org>
> > This is basic XPath... > > Yes, but the example is using the id function to go outside of the instance > document itself. From my understanding, the <xf:instance> element is not > considered part of the contained instance document, so XPathing to that > level seems a bit odd. It almost seems as if we are saying that any element > in the entire XForms *document* may be referenced by id via the id() > function. That's exactly what I'm saying, but I may be wrong... But why would xf:instance have an id attribute if you can't use it ? And you can (almost) only use it with id(). > > this usage is suggested in chapter 4.2 of the XForms Draft. > > I see nothing in section 4.2 of the WD that leads me to believe that the > id() function may be used in this fashion. It simply states that all XForm > elements have an id which may be referenced from another context. I would > not grow the assumption that using the id() function to cross-reference > instance documents is what this section is speaking of. Again, what would be the use of an id for xf:instance if you can't use the id() function ? IMHO, this was the solution Josef Dietl was talking about in his mail "RE: evaluation context" from october 19th, 2001 (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2001Oct/0041.html ). Since this is pure speculation, I'd love to have feedback from Josef. > I am not against using id() in this way but I disagree heavily at the idea > that this usage is basic XPath or that the XPath specification speaks to > using any of it's methods (id included) across multiple documents, as is the > case with multiple XForms instances. Well, the problem is that there are two kinds of documents: the "real" document (the file or what-ever) and the "XForms-point-of-view" documents (the instances and so on). It might not be that basic ;-) Maybe that another name should have been chosen for this function... > Please advise, > > - Ryan Anyway, that was not the point of this thread. Dependencies between instances is a must IMHO, and I don't think the current draft deals with it. I'd love to have feedback on this issue. Regards, Jérôme
Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 10:27:27 UTC