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

[Alain C. <ala...@ag...>]

This strange behavior of beta-3 has, apparently, already been fixed in 
the SVN latest builds because the extra xf:group elements are not 
required anymore.

Thank you for reporting this issue!

-Alain

Le 05/11/2011 00:34, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen a écrit :
> 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.
>