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

Re: repeats

From: Jason <jeacott@hardlight.com.au>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:33:24 +1030
Message-ID: <45559FEC.7000901@hardlight.com.au>
To: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
CC: www-forms@w3.org

<form>
...
<model ...>
<xforms:instance id="employees">
</instance>

<xforms:instance id="employees-template">
   <employees>
     <employee>
        <first-name/>
        <last-name/>
     </employee>
    </employees>
</xforms:instance>

<!--first set of binds-->
    <xf:bind id="employees-employees" 
nodeset="instance('employees')/employees" >
   <xf:bind id="employees-employee" nodeset="employee" >
	<xf:bind id="employees-firstname" nodeset="first-name" />
	<xf:bind id="employees-lastname" nodeset="last-name" />
	</xf:bind>
</xf:bind>

<!--second set of binds-->
    <xf:bind id="employees-template-employees" 
nodeset="instance('employees-template')/employees" >
   <xf:bind id="employees-template-employee" nodeset="employee" >
	<xf:bind id="employees-template-firstname" nodeset="first-name" />
	<xf:bind id="employees-template-lastname" nodeset="last-name" />
	</xf:bind>
</xf:bind>

</model>
...
</form>



Erik Bruchez wrote:
> 
> Jason wrote:
> 
>>> You can use binds at your leisure, there are just no binds that need
>>> to target anything in the template, and no duplication of binds. Your
>>> initial point was that there would be a mess, a duplication of
>>> binds. I say no, I don't see why that would be. Your binds, if you
>>> want any, are still against your main instance, like in your XForms
>>> 1.0 first edition scenario.
>>
>> No there is no duplication of binds, just an extra set. I am assuming 
>> that as a good xforms practitioner you would want to bind all the 
>> nodes that are to be source nodes AND all the nodes that are to be 
>> target nodes for the insert to work - which could potentially be all 
>> the nodes in your instance and your prototype instance, where 
>> previously (1.0) the prototype instance nodes would of course not be 
>> required.
> 
> There is no extra set of binds either. I really don't see what problem 
> you are trying to solve with those extra binds. Can you maybe provide a 
> simple example?
> 
> -Erik
> 
Received on Saturday, 11 November 2006 10:03:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:08 GMT