In which state the works on the standard are?

Hello.

In our project we've got to such a phase that we desperately need to resolve
several issues concerning XForms. Before we do so in a proprietary way, I'd
like to ask whether the working group has reached a consensus in these
topics, in order we don't set off in a completely different direction. If
there is no consensus yet, we'll use the following solutions:

1) Navigation among several models:
Having

	<xf:model id="abc">
	<xf:instance>
		<a>
			<b><c>1</c><d>One</d></b>
			<b><c>2</c><d>Two</d></b>
			<b><c>3</c><d>Three</d></b>
		</a>
	</xf:instance>
	</xf:model>

	<xf:model id="xyz">
	<xf:instance>
		<x>
			<y>2</y>
		</x>
	</xf:instance>
	</xf:model>

we need e.g. to choose values from one model with respect to values in
another model:

  calculate="model('abc')/a/b[c=model('xyz')/x/y]/d"

The function model() behaves similarly as the xpath function document() - it
returns the root of the corresponding model.
If used as "model('xyz', 'y'), a relative xpath with respect to the context
node can be used. Each model has its independent context node.


2) A better and more explicit control over form controls:
We need e.g.
 - to grey out the "Next" button if this one is the last page of a sequence
of pages;
 - to hide the whole table if it doesn't contain any line (generated by
<xf:repeat>);
 - to be able to show instance data via a readOnly <xf:selectOne> form
control, and at the same time to be able to modify the bound value via
XForms actions (e.g. by <xf:setValue> or <xf:bind>'s "calculate").

Therefore we decided to support the attributes "relevant", "readOnly" etc.
not only on <xf:bind> elements but also on form controls and on the
<xf:group> element. 
A form control is e.g. readOnly if either the bound instance data node is
readOnly, or if it has a readOnly attribute which evaluates to true.
The values of these attributes are inheritted through the XForms controls
xml hierarchy. E.g. if a xf:group is not relevant, neither of its
descendants is relevant.


3) etc.


Thank you,
		Martin.

Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 04:20:08 UTC