- From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:02:43 +0200
- To: www-forms@w3.org
Aaron Reed wrote: > > Alessandro Triglia wrote: >> Hi >> >> I have another question. What is the purpose and significance of >> <bind> elements nested within another <bind> element? >> >> The schema allows nested <bind>s. However, the normative text does >> not specify what they mean, and there are no examples showing such >> nested <bind>s. >> >> Alessandro Triglia >> > > Nested binds have been a point of debate for a while. You can probably > find some of the debate on this very list. I think that the official > stance for XForms 1.0 is that it isn't necessary to support this to be > 1.0 compliant since it hasn't been fully hashed out, yet. I believe > that some processors do support nested binds by allowing an inner bind > to be relevant to the bind element that contains it. > > I thought that this was going to be addressed in 1.1, but I don't see it > there, yet. Maybe someone from the WG can clarify the status of this > issue. But in short, don't count on any form that you author with > nested binds to work across the 1.0 processors. Mmmh, that's probably one of those things in XForms 1.0 that only appear in the schema, I guess (like the nesting of xforms:output within xforms:label, and interleaving of xforms:choices, xforms:item, and xforms:itemset). Yet the schema is normative, which means that supporting nested binds is actually required by 1.0 implementations. I was not aware there was a real debate. The only possible issue I think was related to what an implementation should do when the parent bind returns a nodeset with more than one element, and I think (but somebody please correct me if I am wrong) that this translates, like in the case of xforms:repeat and xforms:itemset, into applying the children bind elements for each node of the outer bind. At least, that's how this is implemented in Orbeon PresentationServer, and it seems to make perfect sense. -Erik -- Orbeon - XForms Everywhere: http://www.orbeon.com/blog/
Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 14:02:46 UTC