- From: Mikko Honkala <honkkis@tml.hut.fi>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:05:27 +0200
- To: "Ray Cromwell" <ray_cromwell@yahoo.com>, <www-forms@w3.org>
Hi Ray, the bindings in your example seem to be a little off. The bind elements are executed without knowledge of the UI. I would modify your binds a little bit (1. bind points to the right nodeset. 2. direct ref in output): <bind id="fib" nodeset="fib/f" calculate="preceding-sibling::f[1] + preceding-sibling::f[2]"/> <repeat nodeset="fib/f[position() > 2]"> <output ref="."><caption>nth number</caption></output> </repeat> I think this has a better possibility to work. Regards, Mikko Honkala > -----Original Message----- > From: www-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Ray Cromwell > Sent: 28. lokakuuta 2001 5:30 > To: www-forms@w3.org > Subject: Do unbound binds apply? > > > > If there are <bind> entries that are not bound by any > UI control, are they still included during processing > of the dependency graph? If so, is their evaluation > context the root of the the instance data? > > Another question - when building the dependency graph > and you encounter <repeat> UI elements, do you have to > loop through and add each repeating model item > property that is bound into the dependency graph? > > I'm thinking specifically of a fibonacci-sequence > example, where you have > > <fib> > <f>1</f> > <f>1</f> > <f>2</f> > <f>3</f> > <f>5</f> > <f>8</f> > <f>13</f> > <f>21</f> > </fib> > > And you have bindings like > > <bind id="fib" ref="." > calculate="preceding-sibling::f[1] + > preceding-sibling::f[2]"/> > > Next, you have a form like > > <input ref="fib/f[1]"><caption>First > Number</caption></input> > <input ref="fib/f[2]"><caption>Second > number</caption></input> > > <repeat nodeset="fib/f[position() > 2]"> > <output bind="fib"><caption>nth > number</caption></output> > </repeat> > > The idea is that the form shows the two starting > numbers (1,1) and displays all the numbers up to the > last existing one in the instance. If either one of > those two are changed, are all recalculated. However, > the bind expression I used (.) doesn't make sense > outside of the repeat. The spec doesn't seem to say > exactly how the M-D graph should be constructed, but I > am starting from all UI bound binding expressions. > > -Ray > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. > http://personals.yahoo.com >
Received on Monday, 29 October 2001 03:07:19 UTC