- From: Subramanian Peruvemba (PV) <subramanian.peruvemba@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 09:06:19 -0800
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Cc: "'David Landwehr'" <dlandwehr@novell.com>, www-forms@w3c.org, Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com
> I'd say that although it's a good candidate for clarification, the spec
> already allows it.
I have to disagree. The spec does not know it. Spec simply does not
state what should happen in such a case (on bind). The spec is actually
interpreted the other way in the UI (see below).
>
> The spec actually doesn't say whether @nodeset is optional or required
> on xf:bind [1]. However, the schema (which is normative) *does* say that
> @nodeset is optional [2]. This therefore leads to a number of possible
> arrangements, many of which I believe are very useful.
While I agree what you state is useful, but this is not a clarification
it is a new functionality.
You have just stated one aspect of it, now moving to UI layer
<input appearance="minimal">
</input>
When input does not have a "ref", that simply means it does not bind to
any node. This is useful, if the UI wants to provide a field like a
"scratch pad" for the user (does not necessarily want to bind to any
item in the instance)
Similarly
<input ref="..">
<label>Label</label>
</input>
In the above case "ref" s not provided by label does *NOT* mean it is
bound to a node. It simply means binding to none (and hence use the
value inside). So is output and ...
PV
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2004 12:07:59 UTC