Re: [Xsltforms-support] xsltforms-beta3 vs xsltforms-beta3RC vs ... ?

[C. M. Sperberg-M. <cm...@bl...>]

On Nov 4, 2011, at 3:21 PM, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
> 
> Briefly, the problem appears to be that an xf:switch element
> within an xf:repeat appears to be affecting the visibility of elements
> which follow the switch and should be unaffected by it.  

I'm still interested in understanding the cause of the unexpected
behavior (and fixing my form if I have an error), but it appears I
have found a work-around: wrapping the elements in question
in an xf:group seems to cause the form to behave as expected
in both the beta-3RC and beta-3 releases.

New versions of the test document now at 

http://blackmesatech.com/2011/11/xfq/test2-3.xhtml
http://blackmesatech.com/2011/11/xfq/test2-3rc.xhtml

If the beta3 release is doing something it oughtn't, perhaps
knowing that the problem arises with xf:repeat but not with
xf:group/xf:repeat may help track it down.  As far as I can tell
from examining the form in Javascript debuggers, for some
reason the div representing the repeat is being marked as
disabled, in beta-3, as shown on element with id="clonedId29"
when the 'Edit' button of line 2 is clicked in 

http://blackmesatech.com/2011/11/xfq/test-3.xhtml

I hope this helps.

-- 
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com 
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib                 
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************