RE: Reminder for send comments and issues

Allan/Leigh,

I don't recall if I ever wrote it up, but part of my proposal for a @context
attribute was to have a context function, and it would take a parameter of
the number of levels upwards you wanted to go. context() would be 'the
current context', which would be the same as context(0), so to get the
"evaluation context of the parent bound node" you would do context(1).

This more general function would probably work in Leigh's example, and would
make his mark-up look like this:

  <repeat nodeset="a/b">
    <group ref="instance('other')/test[@name = current()/@name]">
      <group ref="context(1)">
        <output ref="."><label ref="@name"/></output>
      </group>
    </group>
  </repeat>

The value of context(1) would be the next evaluation context up, which would
be the context for the first xf:group, which would be a/b[1], a/b[2], etc.

Regards,

Mark


Mark Birbeck
CEO
x-port.net Ltd.

e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net
t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/
w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/

Download our XForms processor from
http://www.formsPlayer.com/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-forms-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Allan Beaufour
> Sent: 07 April 2006 09:29
> To: Klotz, Leigh
> Cc: www-forms@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Reminder for send comments and issues
> 
> 
> On 4/7/06, Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com> wrote:
> > I think there needs to be a new function, something like 
> repeat-node() or repeat-node("id").  It would be used once 
> the context node for the relevance has been used in the outer 
> group, as the inner group can't find its way back to the 
> repeat item without the same function.
> >
> > <repeat nodeset="a/b">
> >   <group ref="instance('other')/test[@name = current()/@name]">
> >     <group ref="repeat-node()">
> >       <output ref="."><label ref="@name"/></output>
> >     </group>
> >   </group>
> > </repeat>
> 
> It's a recurring problem, yes. Maybe we should have something 
> like that. I have no idea whether it has been discussed, and 
> possibly dropped before?
> 
> --
> ... Allan
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 8 April 2006 19:40:32 UTC