15:00:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #forms
15:00:44 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-forms-irc
15:00:53 <ebruchez> ebruchez has joined #forms
15:00:56 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make log public
15:01:02 <Charlie> zakim, [IBM] is Charlie
15:01:03 <Zakim> +Charlie; got it
15:01:09 <Zakim> +John_Boyer
15:01:18 <Rafael> Rafael has joined #forms
15:01:21 <Zakim> +??P36
15:01:37 <Schnitz> zakim, ??p36 is me
15:01:37 <Zakim> +Schnitz; got it
15:01:40 <Zakim> + +1.812.535.aaaa
15:01:43 <Zakim> +??P18
15:01:44 <Schnitz> zakim, mute me
15:01:48 <Zakim> Schnitz should now be muted
15:01:50 <Blake> zakim, aaaa is me
15:02:00 <Zakim> +Blake; got it
15:02:01 <ebruchez> zakim, ??P18 is ebruchez
15:02:14 <Zakim> + +1.919.434.aabb
15:02:15 <Roger> Roger has joined #forms
15:02:20 <Zakim> +ebruchez; got it
15:02:22 <Roger> zakim,code;
15:02:33 <Roger> zakim, code?
15:02:39 <John_Boyer> Meeting: Weekly Forms WG Teleconference
15:02:49 <Zakim> I don't understand 'code;', Roger
15:02:54 <John_Boyer> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0084.html
15:02:59 <Roger> zakim, what is the code?
15:03:00 <Zakim> the conference code is 36767 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Roger
15:03:03 <John_Boyer> John_Boyer has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0084.html
15:03:10 <Zakim> the conference code is 36767 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Roger
15:03:30 <Schnitz> I still have a bit of my cold left, I might be a bit quiet therefore
15:03:44 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
15:03:44 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:03:45 <John_Boyer> Chair: John
15:03:45 <Zakim> +Steven
15:03:50 <John_Boyer> Scribe: Charlie
15:04:07 <John_Boyer> Regrets: Susan, Nick, Leigh
15:04:11 <Zakim> +??P8
15:04:39 <Rafael> zakim, +??P8 is Rafael
15:04:39 <Zakim> sorry, Rafael, I do not recognize a party named '+??P8'
15:04:50 <Rafael> zakim, P8 is Rafael
15:04:50 <Zakim> sorry, Rafael, I do not recognize a party named 'P8'
15:04:57 <Rafael> zakim, ??P8 is Rafael
15:04:57 <Zakim> +Rafael; got it
15:05:13 <John_Boyer> zakim, who is here?
15:05:13 <Zakim> On the phone I see Charlie, John_Boyer, Schnitz (muted), Blake, ebruchez, +1.919.434.aabb, Steven, Rafael
15:05:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see Roger, Rafael, ebruchez, RRSAgent, John_Boyer, Blake, Zakim, Schnitz, Charlie, markbirbeck, Steven
15:05:18 <Rafael> zakim, rafael has roger
15:05:18 <Zakim> +roger; got it
15:06:02 <wellsk> wellsk has joined #forms
15:06:11 <Zakim> +Mark_Birbeck
15:06:12 <unl> unl has joined #forms
15:06:13 <John_Boyer> zakim, 1.919 is wellsk
15:06:13 <Zakim> sorry, John_Boyer, I do not recognize a party named '1.919'
15:06:25 <John_Boyer> zakim, aabb is wellsk
15:06:25 <Zakim> +wellsk; got it
15:06:37 <John_Boyer> zakim, who is here?
15:06:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see Charlie, John_Boyer, Schnitz (muted), Blake, ebruchez, wellsk, Steven, Rafael, Mark_Birbeck
15:06:39 <Zakim> Rafael has roger
15:06:40 <Zakim> On IRC I see unl, wellsk, Roger, Rafael, ebruchez, RRSAgent, John_Boyer, Blake, Zakim, Schnitz, Charlie, markbirbeck, Steven
15:06:40 <David_Landwehr> David_Landwehr has joined #forms
15:06:41 <Charlie> Topic: Reports
15:06:49 <David_Landwehr> Zakim, code?
15:06:49 <Zakim> the conference code is 36767 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), David_Landwehr
15:06:53 <John_Boyer> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0084.html
15:06:54 <David_Landwehr> Zakim, thanks
15:06:54 <Zakim> you are very welcome, David_Landwehr
15:07:15 <Charlie> Next F2F, June 13-15
15:07:24 <Charlie> please fill out reg form
15:07:43 <Zakim> +??P11
15:07:48 <Roger> me too
15:07:48 <Charlie> Steven: tweaks done
15:07:52 <Zakim> + +49.336.293.aacc
15:07:56 <David_Landwehr> Zakim, ??P11 is David_Landwehr
15:07:56 <Zakim> +David_Landwehr; got it
15:07:59 <David_Landwehr> Zakim, mute me
15:07:59 <Zakim> David_Landwehr should now be muted
15:08:39 <Charlie> Steven: XForms title is autogenerated-can't be changed
15:09:07 <Charlie> Action: Steven to change template
15:10:09 <Charlie> please fill out questionnaire as network access and building access is driven off that too
15:10:12 <John_Boyer> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0063.html
15:10:48 <Charlie> John: questionnaire on tech plenary, assume we're shooting for end of the week
15:11:23 <unl> zakim, mute me
15:11:23 <Zakim> sorry, unl, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:11:28 <Charlie> John: so we have thurs afternoon, fri, sat
15:11:49 <unl> zakim, +49.336.293.aacc is me
15:11:49 <Zakim> +unl; got it
15:11:53 <Charlie> Steven: AC meets for 1/2 day, thurs AM so not scheduling WGs for then
15:12:02 <unl> zakim, mute me
15:12:02 <Zakim> unl should now be muted
15:12:05 <Charlie> so we spill over to Sat AM
15:12:30 <Charlie> and hence need to confirm that WG participants sign up to do this
15:12:58 <Charlie> or we decide to not use sat AM
15:13:15 <Charlie> John: we can work out later, i'll say we're not flexible on days
15:14:18 <Charlie> John: made estimate of 6 people attending wed tech plenary
15:14:29 <Charlie> out of about 17
15:14:46 <Schnitz> zakim, unmute me
15:14:46 <Zakim> Schnitz should no longer be muted
15:14:52 <Charlie> Charlie: i will attend
15:14:57 <Steven> I will
15:15:02 <Schnitz> zakim, mute me
15:15:02 <Zakim> Schnitz should now be muted
15:15:04 <unl> i won't attend
15:15:05 <John_Boyer> i will
15:16:00 <Charlie> Steven: good idea to attend so groups can meet each other
15:16:11 <Charlie> topics of interest cross-groups
15:16:27 <Charlie> backplane could be discussed 
15:16:33 <Charlie> Charlie: if we get IPR resolved...
15:16:52 <Schnitz> zakim, unmute me
15:16:52 <Zakim> Schnitz should no longer be muted
15:17:16 <Schnitz> zakim, mute me
15:17:16 <Zakim> Schnitz should now be muted
15:17:59 <Steven> Looks like there are 4 AC reps on the WG
15:18:16 <Charlie> Topic: Xforms 1.0 3rd edition
15:18:17 <Steven> .... Sebastian, Raman, Erik, Kenneth
15:18:33 <Charlie> John: doc is about ready
15:18:51 <Charlie> one outstanding issue is regarding patent policy
15:19:15 <Charlie> pub rules checker on 2nd edition, proposed rec was under 2002 policy
15:19:32 <Charlie> pub rules checker was failing at that time given we're now under 2004 policy
15:19:51 <Charlie> we updated to that, passed pub rules, published the doc
15:20:07 <Charlie> was not right process, pub rules changed by june to understand diff policies
15:20:20 <Charlie> status for 3rd edition has to state relationship to previous version
15:20:49 <Charlie> pub rules has "1.0 still under 2002 policy, governed by transition rules as stated in 2004 policy"
15:20:58 <Charlie> just want to be clear where we are
15:21:14 <Charlie> Steven: 2nd ed claimed 2004, but was actually 2002
15:21:21 <Charlie> 3rd ed is still under 2002?
15:21:22 <Charlie> John: yes
15:21:43 <Charlie> 1.0 edition is wrong to say it's under 2004
15:22:20 <Charlie> s/edition/2nd edition
15:22:39 <Charlie> Steven: Ian issued call for exlusions...indicates falls under 2004 policy
15:22:45 <Charlie> s/exlusions/exclusions
15:23:23 <Charlie> John: Ian indicated we should go under 2002 policy with transition procedures
15:23:33 <Charlie> and I indicated to him we would do this
15:24:10 <Charlie> I clarified to Ian that we had actually published 2nd edition...waiting for confirmation his recommendation is still correct
15:24:24 <Charlie> Steven: let me check now with him on IRC
15:24:38 <Charlie> Topic: Forms joint task force
15:24:47 <Schnitz> zakim, unmute me
15:24:47 <Zakim> Schnitz should no longer be muted
15:24:51 <Charlie> John: do we need quest. or does it go to HCG
15:24:59 <Charlie> Steven: raised with HCG...need to check their minutes
15:25:06 <Charlie> John: they did discuss, but waiting for us...
15:25:18 <Charlie> John: we'll bring it up in next HCG meeting
15:25:19 <Schnitz> k
15:25:24 <Schnitz> zakim, unmute me
15:25:24 <Zakim> Schnitz was not muted, Schnitz
15:25:30 <Schnitz> zakim, mute me
15:25:30 <Zakim> Schnitz should now be muted
15:25:31 <John_Boyer> Question about support for xsi:type
15:25:35 <Schnitz> ;-)
15:25:41 <Charlie> Topic: Question about support for xsi:type
15:25:48 <John_Boyer> 28<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0076.html>
15:26:55 <Charlie> John: is it valid to use xsi:type when there is no schema?
15:27:18 <Charlie> problem with using xsi:type and referring to internal schema is not valid unless server also loads internal schema
15:27:22 <Charlie> so interesting question
15:27:32 <Charlie> just looking at processors, seems like no problem
15:27:45 <Steven> Regrets+Joern
15:27:54 <Charlie> but on submission those declarations not available
15:27:55 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
15:27:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-forms-minutes.html Steven
15:28:07 <Charlie> opinions?
15:28:12 <Charlie> Mark: what are you suggesting?
15:28:20 <Charlie> John: not suggesting either way...
15:28:26 <Steven> rrsagent, make log public
15:28:32 <Charlie> Mark: we discussed a lot of this during xforms basic
15:28:35 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
15:28:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-forms-minutes.html Steven
15:28:39 <Charlie> I think we should support these types
15:28:55 <Charlie> want the ability to use types without schema for convenience
15:29:03 <Charlie> John: we're not talking about type MIP
15:29:37 <Charlie> Erik: regarding submitted data problem, this is fine with us
15:30:02 <Charlie> no requirement that document needs to be validated with same schema on submission
15:30:14 <Steven> ScribeOptions: -implicitContinuations
15:30:19 <Charlie> could have MIP making xsi:types not relevant no submission
15:30:30 <Charlie> stripping those attributes on submisssion
15:30:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-forms-minutes.html Steven
15:31:23 <Charlie> John: anyone belive xsi:type should only be applied if form author as attached a schema?
15:31:29 <Charlie> s/belive/believe
15:31:52 <Steven> I think the user would expect xsi:type to work
15:31:59 <Charlie> Erik: we did specify xsi:type had semantics of schema, but we didn't specify how this should behave
15:32:00 <John_Boyer> me too
15:32:23 <Charlie> Mark: we refer to schema data types
15:32:35 <Charlie> can be used independently of full schema
15:32:52 <Charlie> Erik: don't have strong opinion...MIP could do the same thing
15:33:12 <Charlie> Erik: was more concerned that the spec was unclear
15:33:41 <Charlie> John: section 5.2, generally section 5, contains language suggesting that processing of instances is informed by schema of xforms
15:33:49 <Charlie> so there's an implict schema available to the parser
15:34:07 <Charlie> 5.2 lists xforms data types
15:34:14 <Charlie> as "built-in xml schema datatypes"
15:34:41 <Charlie> Mark: in basic you can use these independently of full schema, so why inhibit use here?
15:35:04 <Charlie> Erik: clear we want to allow in MIP, but in parsing instance it's a bit different
15:35:38 <Charlie> Mark: but why not for consistency allow both?
15:36:12 <Charlie> Erik: could imaging building an instance using xsi:type but not having ability to disable those attributes for validation etc
15:36:37 <Charlie> s/imaging/imagine
15:37:06 <Charlie> Erik: but using the bind it's clear whether to valid the node or not
15:37:18 <Charlie> John: this implies xsi:type is not preferred
15:37:40 <Charlie> Mark: xforms full talks about using xml schema, this is available to full processor, basic processors might do something different
15:37:59 <Charlie> Erik: if we want to make xforms schema-language agnostic in the future
15:38:07 <Charlie> Mark: that's future work
15:38:52 <Charlie> Erik: i do think the spec is not very clear on this
15:39:19 <Charlie> need to fix the language to specify that xsi:type attributes are processed even in absence of schema
15:39:37 <Charlie> John: ok...action item???
15:39:48 <Charlie> Erik: do you think it's clear enough?
15:40:15 <Charlie> John: i think you're asking for a statement in section 5 on datatypes
15:40:19 <Charlie> connecting their usage to xsi:type?
15:40:28 <Charlie> Erik: not sure about specific section, it's mentioned several times
15:40:48 <Charlie> Erik: just need to clarify that processor must deal with xsi:type on instance elements
15:41:19 <Charlie> John: not clear to me where this change should be made...where it's unclear
15:41:36 <Charlie> issue needs some more work
15:41:53 <Charlie> Erik, could you look at the spec and see where to make this change?
15:42:02 <markbirbeck> zakim, mute me
15:42:02 <Zakim> Mark_Birbeck should now be muted
15:42:07 <Charlie> Action: Erik to recommend where the spec should be clarified about xsi:type handling
15:42:09 <John_Boyer> 28<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0075.html>
15:42:33 <Charlie> Topic: References to 'deferred update behavior'
15:43:17 <John_Boyer> 28<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0075.html>
15:43:37 <Charlie> John: don't mind dropping the word "special"
15:43:45 <Charlie> on the update behavior
15:44:23 <Charlie> since we're just describing normal deferred update behavior, not an exception to it
15:44:33 <Charlie> which is well defined
15:44:36 <Charlie> any objections?
15:44:51 <Charlie> Action: John to remove "special" on deferred update behavior
15:44:54 <John_Boyer> Need rigorous definition of "Acceptable XPath Expression"
15:44:58 <Steven> q+ to ask about adding issues to issue db
15:45:07 <Charlie> Topic: Need rigorous definition of "Acceptable XPath Expression"
15:45:22 <Steven> URL?
15:45:32 <Charlie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2007JanMar/0053.html
15:46:00 <Charlie> John: issue we have not defined what's acceptable as an xpath expression
15:46:13 <Charlie> in binding expressions
15:46:42 <Charlie> Erik: also last call comment asking for definition of acceptable xpath expression
15:46:52 <Charlie> "acceptable" is not a good word...we don't say what happens if not acceptable
15:47:02 <Charlie> in bind for example we say a rebuild is required
15:47:09 <Charlie> but in ui binding we don't seem to do the same thing
15:47:18 <Charlie> confusing to me what acceptable means and its consequences
15:47:29 <Steven> My action "10 01Action: Steven to change template" has been done
15:47:39 <Charlie> move away from that term and talk about dynamic bindings and when they can be used
15:47:41 <Zakim> -David_Landwehr
15:48:10 <Charlie> Erik: what we're trying to say is complicated, but we understand how it's supposed to work...wording is just not intuitive
15:48:20 <Charlie> John: sense an action item...
15:48:48 <Charlie> Action: Erik to propose alternate wording for "acceptable" xpath expression
15:49:05 <Charlie> Topic: Instance replacement fix needed
15:49:58 <Charlie> Steven: [ot] who has responsibility for adding actions to DB? need this for last call?
15:50:13 <Charlie> John: [ot] for Last call in particular?
15:50:31 <Charlie> Topic: Last call issues
15:50:41 <Charlie> John: i'd like to clarify this process
15:50:57 <Charlie> Steven: issues we agree to handle, have to forward to email address of the db
15:51:10 <Charlie> when we deal with an issue, need to update DB with solution
15:51:20 <Charlie> then reply to the person asking if they're ok with the decision
15:51:32 <Charlie> John: what did we do for 1.0
15:51:35 <Schnitz> zakim, unmute me
15:51:35 <Zakim> Schnitz should no longer be muted
15:51:42 <Charlie> Sebastian: we did this for 1.0
15:52:07 <Charlie> Steven: i think the easy way is for some single person to take this on
15:52:24 <Charlie> Sebastian: agree, would be best for someone with interest in the system
15:52:37 <Charlie> Steven: we're using Shane's system so it's easy
15:52:52 <Charlie> issues just need to be forwarded there, with later update after decision
15:53:09 <Charlie> John: on prior telecon we started that process, made progress up to march 14 on the telecon
15:53:15 <Charlie> Steven: and updated db at same time
15:53:48 <Charlie> John: hoped we could continue that process, with someone to handle db updates...volunteers???
15:53:59 <unl> zakim, unmute me
15:53:59 <Zakim> unl should no longer be muted
15:54:03 <Steven> zakim, pick a victim
15:54:03 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Schnitz
15:54:26 <Charlie> Uli: I will take the job
15:54:33 <Schnitz> zakim, mute me
15:54:33 <Zakim> Schnitz should now be muted
15:54:43 <Charlie> Steven: i'll fill you in on process offline
15:55:01 <Schnitz> zakim, thank you
15:55:01 <Zakim> you are very welcome, Schnitz
15:55:03 <Schnitz> ;-)
15:55:16 <Charlie> Topic: Instance replacement fix needed
15:55:51 <Charlie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0081.html
15:56:35 <Charlie> John: issue is if you replace an instance we don't describe fully in the spec that ui controls might receive value-changed and other MIP events
15:56:59 <Charlie> has led to discussion about other points in the lifecycle where we might have/want events
15:57:18 <Charlie> could be a problem since alerts etc might get fired at initialization
15:57:36 <Charlie> so would suggest we clarify behavior specifically of refresh
15:57:45 <Charlie> after instance replacement, get rrrr sequence
15:59:19 <Charlie> Erik: we have 2 different problems, initialization and instance replacement
15:59:37 <Charlie> can read the spec on refresh and think it works with replacement
16:00:04 <Charlie> John: agree that refresh language is deficient in that it doesn't clarify this
16:00:16 <Charlie> Erik: i was only raising issue of replacement
16:01:01 <markbirbeck> many apologies, but I have to go.
16:01:07 <Zakim> -Mark_Birbeck
16:01:24 <Charlie> we define refresh based on instance node, with complete replacement it's difficult to define behavior in terms of changes to existing nodes
16:02:03 <Schnitz> zakim, unmute me
16:02:03 <Zakim> Schnitz should no longer be muted
16:02:07 <Roger> thx & bye
16:02:10 <Zakim> -Steven
16:02:12 <Zakim> -Blake
16:02:12 <Zakim> -unl
16:02:14 <Zakim> -wellsk
16:02:16 <Zakim> -ebruchez
16:02:17 <Blake> bye
16:02:18 <Zakim> -Schnitz
16:02:20 <Zakim> -Rafael
16:02:22 <Zakim> -Charlie
16:02:24 <Zakim> -John_Boyer
16:02:26 <Zakim> HTML_Forms()11:00AM has ended
16:02:26 <Steven> Uli?
16:02:28 <Zakim> Attendees were Charlie, John_Boyer, Schnitz, +1.812.535.aaaa, Blake, +1.919.434.aabb, ebruchez, Steven, roger, Mark_Birbeck, wellsk, David_Landwehr, unl
16:02:30 <wellsk> wellsk has left #forms
16:02:39 <Steven> Uli?
16:02:58 <Blake> Blake has left #forms
16:03:07 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make minutes
16:03:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-forms-minutes.html John_Boyer
16:03:11 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, bye
16:03:11 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-forms-actions.rdf :
16:03:11 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Steven to change template [1]
16:03:11 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-forms-irc#T15-09-07
16:03:11 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Erik to recommend where the spec should be clarified about xsi:type handling [2]
16:03:11 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-forms-irc#T15-42-07
16:03:11 <RRSAgent> ACTION: John to remove "special" on deferred update behavior [3]
16:03:11 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-forms-irc#T15-44-51
16:03:11 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Erik to propose alternate wording for "acceptable" xpath expression [4]
16:03:11 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-forms-irc#T15-48-48