- From: David Landwehr <david.landwehr@picoforms.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:25:27 +0100
- To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- CC: mark.birbeck@x-port.net, Joern Turner <joern.turner@web.de>, www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-request@w3.org
Hi Joern, I think all implementors in the working group have always returned 6 nodes and not enforced the restriction of the homogeneous node-set; exactly as Mark Birbeck wrote. I think we once reached a consensus to remove this restriction in the group. Best regards, David John Boyer skrev: > > Hi Joern, > > Hmm, yes, I forgot about that common parent issue entirely. > > Yes, XForms does currently place a restriction on what XPath will > natively do. > So, the XPath will indeed produce 6 nodes, but XForms repeats place > restrictions on those nodes corresponding to the definition of > homogeneous collection. So look for that word. > > The spec says that the nodes must have the same qname and same parent. > This means that you can expect some or many implementations to create > a binding exception if the rules of homogeneous collection are not met. > > It turns out that the spec work has *not* been done to eliminate the > homogeneous collection language from repeat, though we did mostly > remove it from insert/delete in 1.1. > > My spidey sense tells me that a last call comment on this point may > not be too far in the distance. Keep in mind that a 'last call' > comment doesn't mean it'll change, but it also doesn't mean it won't :-) > > Cheers, > John M. Boyer, Ph.D. > STSM: Workplace Forms Architect and Researcher > Co-Chair, W3C Forms Working Group > Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software > IBM Victoria Software Lab > E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com http://www.ibm.com/software/ > > Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer > > > > > *"Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>* > Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org > > 02/27/2007 08:29 AM > Please respond to > mark.birbeck@x-port.net > > > > To > "Joern Turner" <joern.turner@web.de> > cc > www-forms@w3.org > Subject > Re: implementors question: correct behavior of nested nodeset in repeat > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Joern, > > There used to be a restriction on nodesets, such that they had to have > a common parent and be all of the same name. This has since been > relaxed, so in my view your example should have 6 nodes. > > (Even when the nodeset restrictions were tighter, I don't believe it > was clear what to do in this situation; throw an error on selecting > the nodes? Just return the first 3 nodes, from the first parent? > Nothing was clearly defined.) > > Regards, > > Mark > > > On 27/02/07, Joern Turner <joern.turner@web.de> wrote: > > > > seeking help understanding the following use case: > > > > for an instance like this: > > xforms:instance id="Test" > > > <data xmlns=""> > > <level id="1"> > > <item>Item 1-1</item> > > <item>Item 1-2</item> > > <item>Item 1-3</item> > > </level> > > <level id="2"> > > <item>Item 2-1</item> > > <item>Item 2-2</item> > > <item>Item 2-3</item> > > </level> > > </data> > > </xforms:instance> > > > > and a repeat like this: > > <xhtml:body> > > <xforms:repeat id="repeat1" nodeset="/data/level/item"> > > <xforms:input ref="."> > > <xforms:label>Value</xforms:label> > > </xforms:input> > > </xforms:repeat> > > </xhtml:body> > > > > what would be the correct behavior? Should the repeat show 3 or 6 items > > and what would happen in case of an insert? > > > > I couldn't find a clear answer to this from the Spec - help anyone? > > > > Joern > > > > > > > > > -- > Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer > > mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 > http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com > > standards. innovation. > >
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:26:01 UTC