W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > June 2007

RE: Question / comment about f2f resolution Resolution 2007-06-15.13

From: Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:04:12 -0700
Message-ID: <E254B0A7E0268949ABFE5EA97B7D0CF4033A5D18@usa7061ms01.na.xerox.net>
To: <ebruchez@orbeon.com>, <public-forms@w3.org>
Cc: <www-forms-editor@w3.org>

If this turns out not to be possible, our fallback which we discussed in
the meeting was simply to remove the property from the event.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:public-forms-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Erik Bruchez
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:09 AM
To: public-forms@w3.org
Cc: www-forms-editor@w3.org
Subject: Question / comment about f2f resolution Resolution


(Not sure if I can point to this resolution anywhere online yet.)

This regards this issue:


The resolution in the minutes says:

   "we accept with modifications; instead of the half-detached behavior
    we propose a parallel event context value listing parents of
    deleted nodes, with positional correspondence."

John hasn't yet propose the text, but I am wondering what "positional
correspondence" means.

Assume you delete three elements children of a same parent. If the
plan is for this context property to return a node-set, then I wanted
to point out that it can't contain duplicates as per XPath 1.0 [1]:

  "node-set (an unordered collection of nodes without duplicates)"

It can only return the parent node a single time, in which case there
would be no "positional correspondence".

(With XPath 2.0, you could return a sequence, which can contain

If what I am describing above is the way this property was imagined,
then another solution will have to be found.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#section-Introduction

Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 18:05:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:52 UTC