Re: Question / comment about f2f resolution Resolution 2007-06-15.13

Erik is right here. 

I think we cannot easily create the positional correspondence.  It can be 
done, but it is ugly and I cannot really think of a use case at this time.

The original motivation had to do with facilitating the description of 
repeat element behavior in terms of xforms-delete listeners.  Due to the 
common parent part of the definition of homogenous collection, knowing the 
parents seemed useful, but that it no longer the case.

So I think we just need to drop the language that talks about 
half-detached behavior and not replace it with anything as it is still 
possible to describe repeat mutation behaviors in terms of xforms-delete 
and xforms-insert events.

Cheers,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com> 
Sent by: public-forms-request@w3.org
06/18/2007 09:08 AM
Please respond to
ebruchez@orbeon.com


To
public-forms@w3.org
cc
www-forms-editor@w3.org
Subject
Question / comment about f2f resolution Resolution 2007-06-15.13







All,

(Not sure if I can point to this resolution anywhere online yet.)

This regards this issue:

   http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/Events?id=18

The resolution in the minutes says:

   "we accept with modifications; instead of the half-detached behavior
    we propose a parallel event context value listing parents of
    deleted nodes, with positional correspondence."

John hasn't yet propose the text, but I am wondering what "positional
correspondence" means.

Assume you delete three elements children of a same parent. If the
plan is for this context property to return a node-set, then I wanted
to point out that it can't contain duplicates as per XPath 1.0 [1]:

  "node-set (an unordered collection of nodes without duplicates)"

It can only return the parent node a single time, in which case there
would be no "positional correspondence".

(With XPath 2.0, you could return a sequence, which can contain
duplicates.)

If what I am describing above is the way this property was imagined,
then another solution will have to be found.

-Erik

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#section-Introduction

-- 
Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
http://www.orbeon.com/