How does a VOR or a VORDME affect the coding decision between CF or IF-TF respectively?
First; you have to understand that ARINC 424 is an industry standard.  It is not regulatory.  The regulatory documents are published by RTCA (and EUROCAE in the EU).  The basic database coding requirements of it are generally well accepted and used by the industry as those are essential to its primary function of interoperability.  But there's a lot of flexibility in how strictly developers follow the standard.
The example you give is one of application of the standard.  Both of the leg combinations are valid, though the IF-TF is preferred.  Note that ARINC 424 uses the word 'should' and not 'shall'.
Having worked FMS, I can say that the VI-CF could be coded but there are potential issues if XYZ is not a VOR/DME.  How is FOOBR defined if there's no DME?  It would have to be defined as an intersection with a radial from another VOR and the XYZ radial or as a Lat/Lon fix.
If it's a Lat/Lon fix, you can't reliably use the CF leg to get to it even if it's nominally on the radial as the radial error is quite large and could result in 'missing the fix' while flying the radial.  And since the Lat/Lon fix is the RNP standard, the preferred leg type would be an IF-TF leg with the IF at XYZ.
If FOOBR is an intersection, it can be workable once you are established on the CF leg - by tracking the crossing radial.  But the VI leg intercept is a floating fix which complicates the path generation as the relative positions of the intercept and FOOBR are not easily computed.  That problem is much simplified if FOOBR is a Lat/Lon.
In my experience, I would expect the CF leg to be coded as a IF-TF.  That provides fixed start and end points and a much simplified intercept computation.  And it wouldn't be unusual for an FMS to convert the the original CF leg (based on the VOR/DME) into a TF leg.