W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > March 2005

Re: Xforms submissions can rarely be reloaded, can this be fixed?

From: Stefano Debenedetti <ste@demaledetti.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:32:03 +0100
Message-ID: <4229ED13.3070403@demaledetti.net>
To: www-forms@w3.org

Hello Jason,

Jason Eacott ha scritto:
> Hi All,
> 	I just noticed this little caveat of the relevant attribute:
> 
> 
>>Instance data nodes with this property evaluating to false are not > serialized for submission.
> 
> 
> this means that If I ever use relevant (and its a dull form that doesn't) then I can never reload that 
> same instance data if I have binds or refs to ANY of the parts that relevant is set on.

Not sure I understand what you mean (do you mean the parts that weren't submitted because relevant was false on them?) but it doesn't seem to be the case according to:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-xforms-20031014/slice4.html#evt-modelConstructDone

> surely this is ridiculous. isnt one of the primary outcomes of x-forms supposed to be that you 
> can easilly manipulate xml, save it, and then read it back in top modify it sometime later?

The XForms design goals are stated here, it doesn't seem to me that they cover exactly what you mentioned:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-xforms-20031014/slice2.html

> This is just about the last straw for me and x-forms I think.

Do you mean you like h^TML forms better? ;-) Sorry about this one..

> UNLESS
> 
> can anyone tell me whether if I load (ie via <submission replace="instance" />) new instance 
> data that is missing elements and/or attributes that are bound in the form, whether the x-forms 
> processor should ignore the missing parts, or whether it should throw an error?

See reference above for the exact rules and algorithm.

I may be getting it wrong but it seems to me that XForms 1.1 will make even easier to control this issue as it would allow to create arbitrary instance nodes on the fly in response to events.

> hoping someone can shed some light.

HTH, ciao
ste
 
> thanks
> Jason.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2005 17:29:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:00 GMT