IRC log of forms on 2007-05-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

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