xsltforms-support

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

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

I'm encountering a puzzling difficulty with a form I'm working on,
which appears to work fine when run with XSLTForms beta-3RC
but not when run with beta-3.

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.  The 
result is that parts of the document seem to disappear capriciously
when the user clicks certain buttons.  (In longer documents, the
sudden change in document length also leads to the appearance
that the browser is suddenly scrolling up in the document when
this happens -- and then scrolling down again when on further
mouse clicks those parts of the document reappear.)

I've placed two copies of a cut-down example on the Web at

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

which are identical except that they load different versions of XSLTforms,
and which exhibit the unexpected behaviors I'm encountering.
A detailed (and I fear somewhat pedantic) description of what I
am seeing and what I expect to see is included in the forms.

If any readers of this list can shed any light on the problem I'm
having, I'd be grateful.  It could either be a bug introduced between
beta-3RC and beta-3 of XSLTForms, or a bug in my form which
is hidden or tolerated for some reason in beta-3RC but becomes 
visible in beta-3.  

Thanks!

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

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
****************************************************************

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.
>