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

Re: Sorting the exforms way

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:25:44 -0700
To: Mark Seaborne <m_seaborne@mac.com>
Cc: David Landwehr <david.landwehr@solidapp.com>, www-forms <www-forms@w3.org>, www-forms-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8CB8B043.E75E1588-ON8825717D.005A0927-8825717D.005A3EE7@ca.ibm.com>
For what it's worth, you should be able to *write* a sort over data in 
XForms 1.1 due to the if and while attributes on actions.

One might have to play with algorithms to find a reasonably efficient one.

Doing insert into a sorted list should also be possible.
Feasible, though not as nice as pre-built functions.

Cheers,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
Senior Product Architect/Research Scientist
Co-Chair, W3C XForms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com  http://www.ibm.com/software/

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





Mark Seaborne <m_seaborne@mac.com> 
Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org
05/29/2006 06:13 AM

To
David Landwehr <david.landwehr@solidapp.com>
cc
www-forms <www-forms@w3.org>
Subject
Re: Sorting the exforms way







Hi David,

Thanks for the clarification. you forgot the example of using event() 
in 1.1.

All the best

Mark


On 29 May 2006, at 13:56, David Landwehr wrote:

> Hi Mark
>
> There is both an element and a function because implementors 
> currently have both. It is possible with the function to change the 
> criteria of the sorting in a easier way than when the element is 
> used. But with many sorting criteria the function will be messy 
> because if has to nest one sorting within the other where the 
> elements will simply be a list of elements. I will try to make this 
> clearer.
>
> The sort element can be a child of bind/@nodeset (I have to 
> document this) and therefore be used in the model. It is not 
> possible to rearrange the instance DOM using this sorting. Using 
> other extensions from exforms it will be possible to sort an 
> instance before submission. It is also possible to always maintain 
> a sorted order in XForms 1.1 using the event() but it is less than 
> trivial (see attached example).
>
> The sort function will work in all cases, e.g. also for @ref, 
> @value and so on. The function has the greatest flexibility but as 
> said it could "obfuscate" forms (maybe this is also the reason XSLT 
> decided to use an element).
>
> Thanks for the feedback :)
> David
>
>
>
> Mark Seaborne wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Sorting was a bad miss for XForms 1.0 (I think anyway).
>>
>> Both an element and function are documented, I think it would be 
>> useful if the documentation explained  why it is useful to have both.
>>
>> Is the sort element intended only for use in the UI (i.e. only 
>> affect the display sort order, not the document order), or could I 
>> use it as a child of a bind in a model to change document order 
>> (bind being an element that takes a node-set binding)?
>>
>> Alternatively, could the function be used in the model to change 
>> document order in the target node-set?
>>
>> Anyway, you will have guessed that I would like to be able to both 
>> sort the UI and sort within an XML document.
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On 29 May 2006, at 11:39, David Landwehr wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have created a set of extensions for sorting on exforms.org 
>>> (http://exforms.org/sorting.html). Any feedback will be welcomed.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> David
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>> David Landwehr (david.landwehr@solidapp.com)
>>> Chief Executive Officer, SolidApp
>>> Web: http://www.solidapp.com
>>> Office: +45 48268212
>>> Mobile: +45 24275518
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------
> David Landwehr (david.landwehr@solidapp.com)
> Chief Executive Officer, SolidApp
> Web: http://www.solidapp.com
> Office: +45 48268212
> Mobile: +45 24275518
> --------------------------------------------
>
Received on Monday, 29 May 2006 16:27:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:04 GMT