W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > April 2006

Re: xforms:item and xforms:itemset: label and value bound to non-existing nodes

From: Allan Beaufour <beaufour@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:40:14 +0200
Message-ID: <90d6cb0e0604200040x4d2c6fffs14faccbaf824a2ea@mail.gmail.com>
To: "John Boyer" <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: "Xforms W3C WG" <www-forms@w3.org>

Hi John,

On 4/19/06, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> When the label has an empty nodeset, the string result of that is empty string.

Spec.ref? It is correct that it is the empty string if the element
node that a control is bound to has no text children, but this is the
case where the bound node does not exist.

> Non-relevance also typically gets styled as non-visible, so in both of those cases the label
> of the item would not be seen. Non-relevance could also be styled as disabled,

Yes, I agree it is also a question of styling. But it is also a
question of semantics.

> but for a label to be disabled means that it is greyed out.

Spec. ref?

> Non-relevance is applied based on a UI binding between the control and the model.  We
> have direct language in the spec that says if you have no UI binding, then relevance does
> not apply.

Spec. ref?

> So, right now relevance does not get applied to items, regardless of how they are
> declared.

Not directly to items. But what is an item? The item is just a
grouping of a value and a label. So my point, and I think also Erik's,
is what the semantics are for grouping a non-relevant value/label. I
think it makes sense to define a meaningful behaviour. We may, or may
not, have something in the spec. that defines that (the latter I

... Allan
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2006 07:41:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:36:17 UTC