Re: Is switch legal inside a repeat?

Last year, the working group approved errata to XForms 1.0 that support 
switch in repeat in XForms 1.0 documents.

Those change appear in the editor's draft of XForms 1.0 Third Edition, 
currently intended to become a 'proposed edited recommendation' as soon as 
a few admin hurdles can be hopped.

Cheers,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





Charles F Wiecha <wiecha@us.ibm.com> 
Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org
06/01/2007 01:55 PM

To
"C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
cc
www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-request@w3.org
Subject
Re: Is switch legal inside a repeat?







FF 2.0.0.4 has, I believe, broken the XForms extension (at least it has
also done so for me), so I've reverted to 2.0.0.3.

In XForms 1.0 <switch> was not allowed within <repeat> due to concerns
about the resulting duplication of IDs that would result.  In XForms 1.1
this has been addressed -- see section 4.7 of the working draft at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#idref-resolve.

As you observe, however, some implementations of XForms 1.0 do nonetheless
support this.  You should be fine going back to the earlier FF extension.

Charlie Wiecha,


  
  
  
         Is switch legal inside a repeat?  
  
  
         C. M. Sperberg-McQueen  
                             to:  
                                www-forms  
 06/01/ 
     07 
  04:42 
     PM 
  
  
  
  
         Sent by:  
               www-forms-request@w3.org  
         Cc:  
               "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen"  
  
  
  
  







In T. V. Raman's book, he says on pp. 104-105 that repeat "can use
all of the XForms user interface vocabulary* in addition to markup
defined by the host language", and adds in a footnote "An
exception to this is construct <switch>".

I'm a bit confused here, and I wonder if anyone on this list can
enlighten me.

The 1.0 spec does not list 'switch' among the possible children
of 'repeat'-- but it does list 'group', and 'group' may have
'switch' as a child.  Does Raman mean only that 'switch' must not
be a child of 'repeat'? Or is there something in the spec that says
that groups inside of repeats should not have switches?  (And
if so, why?)

In some recent experiments, I used <switch> inside <repeat> to
good effect, and it seemed to work fine with Firefox 2.0.0.3
and the Mozilla XForms add-on 0.7.0.1.  (It doesn't seem to work
with Firefox 2.0.0.4, and I'm trying to figure out whether
the Firefox updates simply broke the add-on, or whether I'm
now being punished for using switch inside repeat.  Since other
parts of XForms seem also not to work for me now, I'm guessing
the former.  But since I'm still teaching myself XForms, and
can't always tell correct XForms usage from incorrect usage,
it's hard to be sure -- hence this question.)

I'll be grateful for any light anyone can shed on this question.
Thanks!

--Michael Sperberg-McQueen
   W3C