On 11/01/2012 08:15, Heath Frankel wrote: > > Further to my previous email, I believe the original intent of the > name attribute is a form caption of an element value, the approach of > adding a numeric suffix to provide a unique key is contrary to this > original intent. >
this is correct. The rule for name being set to a string + "_N" was for the situation where no name value was supplied by user or software - and - a general assumption that the name often won't be displayed at all, e.g. if multiple values are simply displayed in some kind of table control. I am not saying this is good design; just that this was the approach up to the current release. > Btw, another example of multiple names values conflict with this > unique name rule is multiple alias party-identity occurences, in fact > anywhere where you use a coded name such as a lab observation with > multiple occurrences. Adding a suffix makes the value different to > the code rubric, which frowned upon in terminology circles. > only if the name was a DV_CODED_TEXT, but it would have to be a DV_TEXT in this case, with the value derived from the code from LOCATABLE.archetype_node_id (i.e. the meaning of the node). -thomas
