- From: Subramanian Peruvemba (PV) <subramanian.peruvemba@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 09:33:03 -0800
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Cc: "'David Landwehr'" <dlandwehr@novell.com>, www-forms@w3c.org, Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com
> 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.
>
> For example, you could break this:
>
> <bind nodeset="task" readonly="true()" relevant="true()" />
>
> into this:
>
> <bind nodeset="task">
> <bind readonly="true()" />
> <bind relevant="true()" />
> </bind>
>
Couldn't the same thing could be done as
<bind nodeset="task">
<bind nodeset="." readonly="true()"/>
<bind nodeset="." relevant="true()"/>
</bind>
> <bind nodeset="shortTermLoanApplication">
> <xi:include href="business-rules.xml" />
> </bind>
>
> whilst another form might have this:
>
> <bind nodeset="studentLoanApplication">
> <xi:include href="business-rules.xml" />
> </bind>
>
> The company's rules can now be changed in one place.
>
> Leigh's use of <bind /> is a special case of this, where if you have a
> number of rules in the central file, you would need to encapsulate them
> all in a single xf:bind:
>
> <bind>
> <bind readonly="true()" />
> <bind constraint=". > 7" />
> </bind>
>
Again, I think, included file can easily do the following
<bind nodeset=".">
<bind nodeset="." readonly="..."/>
<bind nodeset="." ... />
</bind>
Isn't it? This is a bit more explicit also. Am I missing something?
PV
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2004 12:34:56 UTC