Re: Single Item Binding vs Single Node Binding

I guess this was when we switched to XPath 2, and 4 cases got overlooked.

I will fix.

Thanks!

Steven

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 00:34:35 +0200, Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>  
wrote:

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