W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xformsusers@w3.org > October 2016

Re: Single Item Binding vs Single Node Binding

From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:34:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAc0PEVNER2UzN4g-_Y0u1woJ-OWS7ozF_QsG9P1FR7DEipF+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
Cc: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, "public-xformsusers@w3.org" <public-xformsusers@w3.org>
It is true that in most practical cases controls bind to nodes. However we
allow binding to atomic values as well, so "Single Item Binding" more
accurately reflects that given XPath 2.0+.

Currently I find:

- 1 occurrence of "single node binding"
- 3 occurrences of "single-node binding"
- 73 occurrences of "single item binding"

I suggest the uses of "single node binding" and "single-node binding"
should be changed to "single item binding".

-Erik

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:27 PM, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <
cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> wrote:

>
> > On Oct 27, 2016, at 3:45 PM, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The text uses both "Single Item Binding" and "Single Node Binding".
> >
> > Is there a difference?
>
> I have no opinion on whether there is or should be, in XForms.
>
> But it may be relevant to reflect that in XPath 2.0 and 3.0, the
> term “item” is used for a thing which is or can be either a node
> in an XML document (or document fragment) or a value of a
> simple type.  (An element is always a node, and an integer is
> always a value; a function which can accept either an element
> or an integer as its argument will declare the parameter as
> having type item().)
>
> So using “item” to mean just “node” is likely to confuse some
> readers, if they are coming from the current generations of
> XPath, XSLT, and/or Query.
>
>
> ********************************************
> C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> Black Mesa Technologies LLC
> cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com
> http://www.blackmesatech.com
> ********************************************
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2016 22:35:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 27 October 2016 22:35:30 UTC