- From: Mark Schenk <css@markschenk.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:50:45 +0200
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 10:51:02 +0200, Mark Schenk <css at markschenk.com> wrote: > What I understood from the spec is that only "repetition blocks" (not > orphan ones) can have working add buttons inside the repetition block. > This would result in those buttons also being present in the "orphan > repetition blocks" but then being disabled. That is ugly. > > With the new repeat-template attribute, it would also be possible to > have working add buttons inside orphan repetition blocks, because it can > now be easily determined which template to clone. This would allow much > more flexible addition of templates. Never mind the above bits, I read in the working draft that the definition of "orphan repetition block" has been updated accordingly. > A major problem this brings is the numbering of the "index" value for > the repetition blocks. This would have to be dynamically updated to all > of the same repetition blocks. > > This leads me to another question: why don't the index values changes > when moving the repetition blocks up/down? That kind of defeats the > purpose of the auto-numbering of the name attributes, as the order in > the markup will differ from the index numbering. These questions still apply. -- Mark
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:50:45 UTC