- From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 23:12:35 +0530
- To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
- Cc: "Adrian Baker" <adrian@fastmail.net>, "David Landwehr" <david.landwehr@picoforms.com>, www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF2F0CC39F.52E8F576-ON652572E1.005F0070-652572E1.006147EC@ca.ibm.com>
We resolved [1] to remove 1.1 from 1.1, since @while can at least satisfy all iteration requirements (though sometimes iteration is more pithy). I have added it to Future Features, including a description of some of the issues that spec ready text would have to handle. The issues are around insertions, value changes and especially deletions that could change the nodeset over which the iteration is occurring. Put another way, the issue is that someone needs to write the spec to say what the answers will be and then everyone else needs to actually agree. For example, there are three opinions about what should happen if nodes are deleted from the action sequence (don't do that, the nodes disappear, the nodes still exist as orphans). In essence, the iteration attribute creates a situation that is found nowhere else in the entire action system. For every other action, the attributes of the action are a "point solution" in that they apply only to what that action does at a particular moment in time. The values of the attributes are not needed once the action completes. This is even true of @while. Finally, it should also be noted that some of the main use cases for an iteration attribute have also since been addressed by modifications to insert and delete to allow them to operate over a whole nodeset, so the most prevalent use cases for adding the feature have been addressed without adding enough features to create the issues above. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2005OctDec/att-0134/2005Oct20.html#resolution1 [2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/Create_a_construct_for_actions_that_iterates_over_a_nodeset 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 "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net> Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org 05/11/2007 10:39 PM Please respond to mark.birbeck@x-port.net To "David Landwehr" <david.landwehr@picoforms.com> cc "Adrian Baker" <adrian@fastmail.net>, www-forms@w3.org Subject Re: exf:iterate ? I agree, David. We have implemented all of your attributes, including @iterate. :) On 11/05/07, David Landwehr <david.landwehr@picoforms.com> wrote: > > I could not agree more and I found it a little strange that the working > group did not adopt all the attributes. As far as I recall there was no > particular reason that @iterate was dropped other than that the iterator > description did not specify what happens when a node which it is > iterating was deleted (however this could happen it other circumstances > as well). > > Best regards, > David Landwehr > > Adrian Baker skrev: > > I'm suprised that there's no equivalent of the @exf:iterate attribute > > (http://www.exforms.org/conditionals.html#id4484032) in XForms 1.1, to > > go with the @while attribute. > > > > You can achieve the same thing with @while, but it's very cumbersome > > because the context node doesn't change, so you need to initialise a > > separate counter & manually increment it. > > > > Adrian > > > > -- 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 Sunday, 20 May 2007 17:43:00 UTC