- From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:58:57 -0700
- To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Cc: "public-xformsusers@w3.org" <public-xformsusers@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 24 October 2016 14:59:52 UTC
I think that the idea was to allow in general binding to atomic values (which was not possible before XPath 2) rather than disallow it. Binding to an atomic value simply makes the control readonly, as if it was bound to a readonly node, and possibly makes the value's type available (like in the case of a date). It might not sound terribly useful but there are some use cases, for example: <xf:input ref=" if (condition) then some-node else 'I show this readonly value'" There was also a rationale for allowing `xf:repeat` to iterate over atomic values: <xf:repeat ref="1 to 10"> so it feels consistent to allow atomic values wherever possible. -Erik On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote: > > https://www.w3.org/community/xformsusers/wiki/XForms_2.0#The_input_Element > https://www.w3.org/community/xformsusers/wiki/XForms_2.0#The > _secret_Element > > "Data Binding Restrictions: Binds to any simpleContent (except > xs:base64Binary, xs:hexBinary or any datatype derived from these) or an > atomic value." > > An atomic value? Really? > > Steven > >
Received on Monday, 24 October 2016 14:59:52 UTC