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 11:09:22 -0800
Message-ID: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE15EDF644@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com>
To: "'Subramanian Peruvemba (PV)'" <subramanian.peruvemba@oracle.com>, "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com>
Cc: "'Mark Birbeck'" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, "'David Landwehr'" <dlandwehr@novell.com>, "'www-forms@w3c.org'" <www-forms@w3c.org>

group has uses other than setting context node, which means that it does not
need to have ref, model, or bind.

1. The definition in the first sentence of 9.1.1 The Group Element is
  The group element is used as a container for defining a hierarchy of form
Note that group is used to group form controls for navigation with
xforms-next and xforms-previous actions

2. Also in 9.3.2, it states that <repeat>...</repeat> implies an anonymous
and explicitly gives the example showing the <group>...</group> with no ref,
bind, or model attribute.

3. The host language class attribute is also frequently used on group,
though host languages may provide other containers that don't have any
navigational behavior associated with them.

You may find it more explicit to say <group ref="." /> and it is a good idea
for authors to write in some cases.
But explicitness is in some cases verbosity, and in this case the recursive
composition rules already say what to do.

The issue of <label>, <output>, <message>, <help>, <hint>, <alert> is, I
think, separate from <group> which is already decided and <bind>, which I
point out is underspecified.
<group> is a container, by definition (9.1.1), and <bind> is a container by
definition as well.


-----Original Message-----
From: Subramanian Peruvemba (PV) [mailto:subramanian.peruvemba@oracle.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 10:50 AM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: 'Mark Birbeck'; 'David Landwehr'; 'www-forms@w3c.org'
Subject: Re: A note on <bind /> (similar to <group />)

> We agreed before 1.0 rec that <group ref="." /> was the same as <group />.

Is this stated in the spec? (I am unable to find it).

> At least one implementation and at least one use case are present.
> Leigh.

I still don't see the use case. As I said it would be much more explicit
to state <group ref=".">.

And this way we don't break the current interpretation on <label>, 
<output>, <message>, <help>, <hint>, <alert>, .....

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2004 14:11:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:36:11 UTC