nope, current binding doesn't do this.
That's clear now. From the sample, I was under the impression that the binding would set the "id" attribute equal to the index of the row in the repeater. My wrong.
you can: make the id visible so the user can provide it though
I've tried to do this but it ends up with a document containing an empty list of nodes for those bound to the repeater. I've yet to investigate whether it's an error of mine or a bug.
In my case, actually, an ID is not needed at all. I just need to preserve the order of the nodes. Following the sample verbatim, it would just work, but the new nodes would have a spurious attribute that is not needed. Can I get away without specifying an ID attibute at all?
making sense? or overlooking some essentials?
We might support some key generation strategies, if we wanted, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort. What we could do easily, however, is to give the option of specifying an attribute of the bound object to be filled with the index of the row in the collection, since it's already there, somewhere.
hm, maybe sylvain's event-handling additions could be used to set values for these?
We'll let Sylvain express himself ;-).
-marc=
Thanks a lot,
Ugo
