- From: Jérôme Nègre <jerome.negre@e-xmlmedia.fr>
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:41:34 +0200
- To: Kurt George Gjerde <kurt.gjerde@intermedia.uib.no>
- CC: www-forms@w3.org
Hi,
all my answers are based on my understanding of the new draft (21 aug.
2002).
> -1- ref
>
> Take this form:
>
> <model>
> <instance>
> <project>
> <name>XForms 1.0</name>
> </project>
> <person>
> <name>Janet</name>
> </person>
> </instance>
According to chapter 7.2, the "instance data always has a single root
element" (unlike what the schema says), so your example is incorrect I
think. It should be something like:
<xform:instance>
<data>
<project>...</project>
<person>...</person>
</data>
</xform:instance>
> </model>
> ...
> <group ref="project">
> <input ref="name">
> <label>Project name</label>
> </input>
> <input ref="/person/name">
> <label>Person name</label>
> </input>
> </group>
>
> I assume that
>
> 'Project name' will be "XForms 1.0"
> (ref 'project' + relative ref 'name' = /project/name)
I think it should be (ref 'project' + relative ref 'name' =
/*/project/name = /data/project/person). See chapter 7.3, point 1.
> 'Person name' will be "Janet"
> (absolute ref = /person/name).
With my remarks, @ref should be /data/person/name.
> Correct? This seems logical to me (see 9.1.1, also quoted below) but
> I've seen implementations rendering the second input's ref as
> /project/person/name (or /project//person/name!)
> (ignoring the initial slash in the @ref).
Well those implementations do not follow the latest draft, nor the
previous one.
> -2- model
<snip>
> Would this be 'size' in the 'fishpond' model or in the default model
> ('city')? The former I hope.
I hope to, but I failed to see something like that in the draft.
My 0.02 euro,
Jérôme
Received on Monday, 26 August 2002 10:43:12 UTC