Hi,
I know this issue has been covered before, but maybe you all can help
me find a new angle on a solution:
I've been developing this nifty little javascript-based xml editor,
that uses a schema to dynamically generate the form. Edits to the form
update the instance xml as you type. The best part about it is that
you can create special schema types, that can have all sorts of
validation and special input elements. Sorry, not explaining it to
well, but:
It relies heavily on extending xml elements, based on the related
schema type, to add the validation and display functions. It also
extends the elements so that the schema doc elements can access the
instance xml elements, the instance xml elements can access the form
elements, etc. And I use xpath a lot to traverse for example the
schema doc, then I use those extensions to cross over to the xml
element, etc.
It works quite well in firefox, and allows a nice architecture that's
easy to extend. Of course you can tell where this is heading...
totally doesn't work in IE, because you can't extend the xml elements.
IOW, something like this:
var someElem = doc.createElement("bar");
Object.extend(someElem, myMethods);
someElem.doThis();
var myMethods = {
doThis : function (element){
alert("in DoThis");
}
}
Works in Firefox, not in IE.
This topic's been covered, as I've read.
However, it seems to me like this kind of pattern; needing to be able
to "see" an element from the context of another element, would be
something other people would want to accomplish.
All the fancy validation and display generation, currently within the
xml element, I could move out. However, at the basic level, I still
need to :
1. access some nodes via xpath
2. from those nodes, access related nodes in other documents.
I'm wondering if anyone else has tried to accomplish this same thing,
and how they did it?
Off the top of my head, I can imagine some hacky-solutions, like:
- generate a unique ID for each element, then maintain the linkages
via attributes containing the IDs of related elements. That doesn't
seem terribly elegant, but would work.
Does anyone else have a better approach. I'm all ears.
thanks for your time,
don
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
