- 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