W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > December 2010

Re: Nested binds in future versions of XForms spec

From: Claudius Teodorescu <claud108@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 19:24:36 +0000 (UTC)
To: www-forms@w3.org
Message-ID: <loom.20101202T201656-501@post.gmane.org>
Hi,


I am back with other questions.

On the page about unified evaluation context
(http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/Unified_evaluation_context), one can find
the following example:
<bind nodeset="node/a">
    <constraint context=".." operator="and">
          <constraint boolean="b"/>
          <constraint boolean="c"/>
          <constraint operator="or">
                 <constraint boolean="d"/>
                 <constraint boolean="e"/>
         </constraint>
          <constraint operator="not" boolean="f"/>
    </constraint>
</bind>.

This example shows some nice possibilities as to constraints on data.

1. Is the following syntax correct:
<bind nodeset="node/a">
    <constraint context=".." operator="and">
          <constraint boolean="b"/>
          <constraint boolean="c"/>
          <constraint operator="or">
                 <constraint boolean="d"/>
                 <constraint boolean="e"/>
         </constraint>
          <constraint operator="not" boolean="f"/>
    </constraint>
</bind>
<bind nodeset="node/a">
    <relevant context=".." boolean="b"/>
    <readonly context=".." boolean="c"/>
</bind>
<bind nodeset="node/a">
    <relevant context=".." value="b"/>
</bind>,

or should all MIPs grouped as children of a single bind element. I understand
that this future approach allows more MIPs to be applies to a given node, which
the first example shows, but what about the second example above?

2. Theoretically speaking, how depth can one nest binds?

Thank you,
Claudius Teodorescu
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 19:25:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:21 GMT