Re: Single Item Binding vs Single Node Binding

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
> ********************************************
>
>
>