- From: Peter Nunn <peter.nunn@vistic.net>
- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:46:03 +1200
- To: www-forms@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4620163B.3080406@vistic.net>
Thanks Ivan for the comments. The issue with this one is that the 1.0 spec for XForms is a published specification. I have close to 150 forms in production with many clients that use the setvalue in repeats, and outside of repeats. All of them are using the 1.0 rule. Across all of the other adopters of XForms there are probably several thousand forms so changing the rules is not an option. Anything has to add-to the spec, not change it. There is room for clarification where the spec is ambiguous but in this case I don't think it is. The single-node binding is the context for the value: 10.1.9 ... The evaluation context for this XPath expression is the result from the Single Node Binding. So my proposal is to add something to the XPath expression, not change the rules. Xforms 1.1 supports the concept of a context attribute on the xf:insert element. I doubt if the process would allow for this to go into the 1.1 spec as it is far too close to closing so would only really be practical to consider for the next revision of the spec. For 1.0 and 1.1 adopters the provision of an extension function seems to me to be the best way to handle this issue. So I would propose the following: Work on a submission to the wg for the next revision of the spec to do: 1. The 'context' attribute from the 1.1 xf:insert element be considered as a mechanism to provide the context for the value attribute in a xf:setvalue. I can see a number of issues with this but will leave it alone for now. 2. Add a new xpath function called context(QName) that returns the context of an xforms element. This will need to be worked on to explain the scoping rules when used in nested repeats. For now I am working on a context(QName) extension function that will be in the next beta of MozzIE but that is outside the scope of the wg list. Check the MozzIE wiki after the weekend for a discussion of how I am implementing it (comments are always most welcome). regards
Received on Friday, 13 April 2007 23:46:07 UTC