You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The scenario is a repeat where all elements are marked as non-relevant.
Now, the repeat control itself is considered non-relevant if either:
it binds to no item (no iterations)
all of its items are non-relevant
So the issue here is: how can we make a distinction?
grid.xbl points to the repeat sequence $repeat-sequence. With this and the relevant() function, we could detect this case and hide the headers.
However, it's not perfect: if the repeat has no iterations, then what should be done?
This might point to using a visible attribue on fr:grid, to clearly control the visibility aspect only. This could also of course apply to plain (non-repeated) grids.
Added a visibility-rule to all the items in the repeat and also to the repeat-grid itself, but it's still showing the header. Would expect the header to be hidden also. Not sure if this is the same issue..
Another way is to do what we do for repeated sections in 4.5: add an enclosing element. Therefore the grid and its iterations can have independent properties.
The trick will be to make this backward compatible.
The scenario is a repeat where all elements are marked as non-relevant.
Now, the repeat control itself is considered non-relevant if either:
So the issue here is: how can we make a distinction?
grid.xbl
points to the repeat sequence$repeat-sequence
. With this and therelevant()
function, we could detect this case and hide the headers.However, it's not perfect: if the repeat has no iterations, then what should be done?
This might point to using a
visible
attribue onfr:grid
, to clearly control the visibility aspect only. This could also of course apply to plain (non-repeated) grids.Sample form:
https://gist.github.com/4112819
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: