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

Re: Teaser with model and bind

From: Aaron Reed <aaronr@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 16:26:25 -0500
To: www-forms@w3.org
Message-ID: <hsscb8$e7j$1@dough.gmane.org>
Well stated Alain!  I should point out that Mozilla might say 'joe' but 
it is actually throwing errors in the console because we don't support 
nested binds.  That part of our processor hasn't been updated for the 
1.1 spec.


COUTHURES Alain wrote:
> Erik,
> I tested your teaser (I changed bind/@ref to bind/@nodeset):
>     * EMC Formula: "banana"
>     * Mozilla extension: "Joe"
>     * XSLTForms: nothing
> According to XForms 1.1 recommendation,
>     * Every XPath expression requires an evaluation context consisting
>       of a node, position, size, variable bindings, function set, and
>       namespace context.
>     * if the binding element expresses a |model| attribute that refers
>       to a |model| other than the one containing the context node, then
>       the context node of the in-scope evaluation context is changed to
>       be the top-level document element node of the default instance of
>       the referenced |model|, and the context position and size are
>       changed to 1.
>     * [the output Element] cannot bind to element nodes that have
>       element children.
>     * If element child nodes are present, then an
>       |xforms-binding-exception| occurs.
> So, my point of view is that an exception should occur and I'm still
> proud of XSLTForms for not being completely wrong ;-)
> It might be easier for developer if context could consist of a node for
> each model... then "Joe" would be displayed, don't you think?
> BTW, is there a price to win? ;-)
> -Alain
>> All,
>> Here is a little puzzle:
>> http://gist.github.com/401939
>> What should the output sow, "Joe", or "banana"?
>> First, is it clear that it is allowed to refer by id to a bind that
>> does not belong to the current model?
>> If so, since by specifying @model="model1" we are not actually
>> changing the model in the sense that there is no ancestor @model
>> attribute changing the model, should @model="model1" ensure that the
>> nested xforms:output point to a node in model1 rather than model2?
>> -Erik
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 21:37:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:36:23 UTC