
|
Re: XForms 1.1 - repeat relevance & editorial tweaks.
Hi Vlad,
Per our verbal discussion, the repeat
itself does not get the enabled/disabled events because it does not have
a single node binding.
However, each of the implicit groups
representing rows of the table would receive these events because they
do have a single node binding. And those events would bubble up to
the repeat.
Regarding the typo in 8.1.1, it is fixed.
Regarding the link, it is intended to
work when the document is officially published by the W3C, so it does not
work when the document is placed at the working group editorial location.
Can you please reply to this email to
indicate whether you are satisfied with the reply or whether you have any
further concerns.
Thanks,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@...
Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
Blog RSS feed: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
Dear WG,
Is there a compelling reason for the
provision that xforms-disabled/enabled event cannot target repeat (4.4.1
-4.4.11) and repeat control cannot be relevant or non-relevant (8.1.1)?
Perhaps a repeat can become non-relevant'(relevant)
and the xforms-disabled (enabled ) fire when
it does not have any (has at least one) relevant repeat items (item)?
And a couple of minor issues:
1. Typo in 8.1.1: Second bullet:
...
Note:
Form controls that read or write simpleContent produce
this exception whenever and as soon as they are bound to an element node
that an element child node.
2. The very first link: (not terribly
useful ;) http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-xforms11-20090311/
does not work.
Regards,
Vlad Trakhtenberg.
|

|
Re: XForms 1.1 - repeat relevance & editorial tweaks.
Thanks for your reply. I accept WG's argumentation
and decision. Vlad Trakhtenberg.
Hi Vlad,
Per our verbal discussion, the repeat itself does not get the enabled/disabled
events because it does not have a single node binding.
However, each of the implicit groups representing rows of the table would
receive these events because they do have a single node binding. And
those events would bubble up to the repeat.
Regarding the typo in 8.1.1, it is fixed.
Regarding the link, it is intended to work when the document is officially
published by the W3C, so it does not work when the document is placed at
the working group editorial location.
Can you please reply to this email to indicate whether you are satisfied
with the reply or whether you have any further concerns.
Thanks,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@...
Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
Blog RSS feed: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
Dear WG,
Is there a compelling reason for the provision that xforms-disabled/enabled
event cannot target repeat (4.4.1 -4.4.11) and repeat control cannot be
relevant or non-relevant (8.1.1)?
Perhaps a repeat can become non-relevant'(relevant) and
the xforms-disabled (enabled ) fire when it does not
have any (has at least one) relevant repeat items (item)?
And a couple of minor issues:
1. Typo in 8.1.1: Second bullet:
...
Note:
Form controls that read or write simpleContent produce this exception whenever
and as soon as they are bound to an element node that an element child
node.
2. The very first link: (not terribly useful ;) http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-xforms11-20090311/
does not work.
Regards,
Vlad Trakhtenberg.
|