- From: Jason <jeacott@hardlight.com.au>
- Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:33:24 +1030
- To: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
- CC: www-forms@w3.org
<form> ... <model ...> <xforms:instance id="employees"> </instance> <xforms:instance id="employees-template"> <employees> <employee> <first-name/> <last-name/> </employee> </employees> </xforms:instance> <!--first set of binds--> <xf:bind id="employees-employees" nodeset="instance('employees')/employees" > <xf:bind id="employees-employee" nodeset="employee" > <xf:bind id="employees-firstname" nodeset="first-name" /> <xf:bind id="employees-lastname" nodeset="last-name" /> </xf:bind> </xf:bind> <!--second set of binds--> <xf:bind id="employees-template-employees" nodeset="instance('employees-template')/employees" > <xf:bind id="employees-template-employee" nodeset="employee" > <xf:bind id="employees-template-firstname" nodeset="first-name" /> <xf:bind id="employees-template-lastname" nodeset="last-name" /> </xf:bind> </xf:bind> </model> ... </form> Erik Bruchez wrote: > > Jason wrote: > >>> You can use binds at your leisure, there are just no binds that need >>> to target anything in the template, and no duplication of binds. Your >>> initial point was that there would be a mess, a duplication of >>> binds. I say no, I don't see why that would be. Your binds, if you >>> want any, are still against your main instance, like in your XForms >>> 1.0 first edition scenario. >> >> No there is no duplication of binds, just an extra set. I am assuming >> that as a good xforms practitioner you would want to bind all the >> nodes that are to be source nodes AND all the nodes that are to be >> target nodes for the insert to work - which could potentially be all >> the nodes in your instance and your prototype instance, where >> previously (1.0) the prototype instance nodes would of course not be >> required. > > There is no extra set of binds either. I really don't see what problem > you are trying to solve with those extra binds. Can you maybe provide a > simple example? > > -Erik >
Received on Saturday, 11 November 2006 10:03:36 UTC