- From: Dan Dennedy <DDennedy@digitalbang.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:09:14 -0500
- To: "XForms (E-mail)" <www-forms@w3.org>
Hello, I am new to the list. I experiement with an XForms implementation based upon the Java code Dominic Cooney posted here about a year ago. In doing so, I have modified it to keep it fairly close the evolving spec. In thing I implemented was nested repeat processing, but I want to validate my approach. Here is my sample XForms UI code: <repeat nodeset="section"> <group class="frame"> <input ref="./title"> <caption>Section Title</caption> </input> <repeat ref="." nodeset="div"> <textarea ref="./."> <caption>Paragraph</caption> </textarea> </repeat> </group><br/> </repeat> Notice the nested repeat has both ref and nodeset attributes. Also, notice that the nested control, textarea, has two current context references (dots). When I unroll this on the first iteration, it becomes, for example with 2 sections in my instance: <group class="frame"> <input ref="section[1]/title"> <caption>Section Title</caption> </input> <repeat ref="section[1]" nodeset="div"> <textarea ref="section[1]/."> <caption>Paragraph</caption> </textarea> </repeat> </group><br/> <group class="frame"> <input ref="section[2]/title"> <caption>Section Title</caption> </input> <repeat ref="section[2]" nodeset="div"> <textarea ref="section[2]/."> <caption>Paragraph</caption> </textarea> </repeat> </group><br/> The second iteration of unrolling yields with 1 div in section 1 and 3 divs in section 2: <group class="frame"> <input ref="section[1]/title"> <caption>Section Title</caption> </input> <textarea ref="section[1]/div[1]"> <caption>Paragraph</caption> </textarea> </group><br/> <group class="frame"> <input ref="section[2]/title"> <caption>Section Title</caption> </input> <textarea ref="section[2]/div[1]"> <caption>Paragraph</caption> </textarea> <textarea ref="section[2]/div[2]"> <caption>Paragraph</caption> </textarea> <textarea ref="section[2]/div[3]"> <caption>Paragraph</caption> </textarea> </repeat> </group><br/> Is this correct?
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2001 11:09:14 UTC