W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > February 2004

RE: A note on <bind /> (similar to <group />)

From: Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:10:21 -0800
Message-ID: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE15EDF637@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com>
To: "'Subramanian Peruvemba (PV)'" <subramanian.peruvemba@oracle.com>, "'Mark Birbeck'" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Cc: "'David Landwehr'" <dlandwehr@novell.com>, "'www-forms@w3c.org'" <www-forms@w3c.org>, "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com>

We agreed before 1.0 rec that <group ref="." /> was the same as <group />.
The normative Schema allows <bind /> but doesn't say what it means.
Rather than leave it ambiguous, I'd suggest clarifying it.
I would suggest simply clarifying it for 1.0 to say that bind with no
nodeset and no bind attribute has no effect on the context node.
At least one implementation and at least one use case are present.
Leigh.


-----Original Message-----
From: Subramanian Peruvemba (PV) [mailto:subramanian.peruvemba@oracle.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 9:33 AM
To: Mark Birbeck
Cc: 'David Landwehr'; www-forms@w3c.org; Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com
Subject: Re: A note on <bind /> (similar to <group />)


> The spec actually doesn't say whether @nodeset is optional or required
> on xf:bind [1]. However, the schema (which is normative) *does* say that
> @nodeset is optional [2]. This therefore leads to a number of possible
> arrangements, many of which I believe are very useful.
> 
> For example, you could break this:
> 
>     <bind nodeset="task" readonly="true()" relevant="true()" />
> 
> into this:
> 
>     <bind nodeset="task">
>       <bind readonly="true()" />
>       <bind relevant="true()" />
>     </bind>
> 

Couldn't the same thing could be done as

    <bind nodeset="task">
       <bind nodeset="." readonly="true()"/>
       <bind nodeset="." relevant="true()"/>
    </bind>


>     <bind nodeset="shortTermLoanApplication">
>       <xi:include href="business-rules.xml" />
>     </bind>
> 
> whilst another form might have this:
> 
>     <bind nodeset="studentLoanApplication">
>       <xi:include href="business-rules.xml" />
>     </bind>
> 
> The company's rules can now be changed in one place.
> 
> Leigh's use of <bind /> is a special case of this, where if you have a
> number of rules in the central file, you would need to encapsulate them
> all in a single xf:bind:
> 
>     <bind>
>       <bind readonly="true()" />
>       <bind constraint=". &gt; 7" />
>     </bind>
> 

Again, I think, included file can easily do the following

<bind nodeset=".">
    <bind nodeset="."  readonly="..."/>
    <bind nodeset="." ... />
</bind>

Isn't it? This is a bit more explicit also. Am I missing something?

PV
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2004 13:28:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:21:57 GMT