- 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