InfoPath Dev

IE9 intranet environment

Add new document = Applications%2FForms%2FAllItems%2Easpx&DefaultItemOpen=1 (browser) Click new document from the ribbon =  = Applications%2FForms%2FAllItems%2Easpx&DefaultItemOpen=1 (browser) Workflow = [%Current Item:URL Path%] Clicking on an existing item = Applications%2FForms%2FAllItems%2Easpx&DefaultItemOpen=1 ...

Got a browser enabled form and all is good. Add new document - Opens in browser. Click existing xml - opens in browser However Click on a link to a xml from workflow email - opens in IP Select an xml in the library and click the edit document button in the ribbon - opens in IP Anyway to stop the last 2 from happening? SP/IP both 2010 Library ...

Sure, I'll take a look... till now I've only every put the signature line control onto the form and used that (filler not browser)

Getting a bit muddled with difital signatures here. What I'm trying to do is to have 2 different people sign a form at different times. So.... Applicant fills out form and signs and submits Manager opens form, switches to their view, approves, signs and saves. However when they try to add data they get the message that the form has been ...

ok thanks... seems a bit of a limitation. How would a vendor include an infopath form as part of their solution or even a form itself if the site/library it was destined for couldn't be parameterised or self referenced. Even stranger when you consider that a forms library can be created and specified as an infopath library before you even ...

Could I get around this by publishing the form as a content type? (something I've never done before so would have to research)

Thanks, does the entire URL have to be provided? If I'm understanding correctly then it would appear to be impossible to ever save a site as a template (which is what I ultimately want to do) that contains an infopath forms library?

I'm creating a site in SP2010 which will ultimately be saved as a site template for future use. In this site is a forms library with a browser enabled form. The desired submit option is to publish to the library where the template lives. This is all fine for the site I'm currently creating but later, when any future sites are based on this ...

Were it a browser enabled form I could have used a hyperlink and opened a new browser in a new window. Looking back on this and another thread, it seems the reason I switch to a form filler was to be able to print merged views.