See also: IRC log
<klotz> ok, will dial in now.
<klotz> trying again
<CharlieW> Scribe: CharlieW
<Steven> On the record: http://www.snee.com/bobdc.blog/2008/02/the_future_of_rdfa.html
John: should we continue to XForms 2.0 features or deep-dive into an example module?
Steven: i know how modules work,
so i'd prefer 2.0 discussion
... but it's important to see how to make progress on that
Uli: 2.0
John: could do an hour
Charlie: would like to have a template
Mark: we should start with a modularization template, but i haven't gotten in touch with shane yet
John: do we need an overview
Mark: could do that but i also have an example -- using a message on a div
John: let's start with that, then switch over to 2.0 later on
<John_Boyer> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/FaceToFace
June 9th-12 in Amsterdam, no virtual days
Tech plenary will be in Cannes, not Paris, two virtual days aforewords
John: currently has "+" requiring
at least one element
... we agreed it should be "*"
... should we change this for 1.1?
yes, we should do it
John: it's an easy spec change
Leigh: it's really editorial
Uli: does it make sense?
Leigh: could argue it's not
editorial, since we're adding a test case
... but the test is against XML Events, not our spec so it's
editorial
John: right, this change would add to the test suite, require support in the implementation reports
Leigh: nice test case for XML Events
John: have we publicized the test suite?
Keith: making changes to chapter 1 to emphasize new features...need to get people looking at it for accuracy
John: time frame?
Keith: about a week
John: do we need a formal issue process for the CR phase?
Steven: don't anticipate many issues
<markbirbeck> ttp://www.yugma.com/app/loading.php?user=&role=0&collsession=203673916
<markbirbeck> http://www.yugma.com/app/loading.php?user=&role=0&collsession=203673916 t
<markbirbeck> ttp://www.yugma.com/app/loading.php?user=&role=0&collsession=203673916
John: I have the action item to change the action element content model
<klotz> i can't hear Mark
Mark: does example of
modularization in web conf
... most ajax libs have functions to display, e.g. modal dialog
boxes -- as encoded in div's or span's as templates
... instead of having multiple ways of doing this, why not use
xf:message, xf:hint etc etc
... the example in the demo uses a message, registered on a div
rather than an xforms element
... in what we're proposing for the hint module, you wouldn't
even see the mouseover event registration
John: how would you do a help?
Mark: still to F1, or to platform-specific help feature
John: but our module would not say that
Mark: right
John: so label could be a module...
Mark: yes, it's handy to have in
lots of places
... focus is on the markup, underneath the script can be
platform-specific
... to enable the wiring, do show/hide etc
... e.g. for styling, we can just inline some css, whereas in
the script world you have to go find the message template and
set various attributes procedurally
... as well as control visibility explicitly
John: does this content cause problems for the XHTML schema?
Uli/Steven: yes, that's what modularization is about
Mark: we already have dtd's for
xhtml+rdfa
... already on the w3c server
<klotz> +1
Steven: didn't require a new req track activity, just a combination of existing stuff -- power of modularization
John: when people say they need "valid" html what do they mean?
Mark: they need valid against *some* given schema
Leigh: i like the idea of making
these modules (help, hint, label) available
... but we need to figure out how to make them available inside
message to make them usable
... event model is not worked out
Mark: not sure we need that from day 1 though, we can allow anything inside those elements, no other forms controls
John: as soon as someone does a message+input
Leigh: i'm more worried that we'll decide to change message, for example, and we'll have modularized the old one...
John: certainly one of the problems for message if that you put lots of controls in there, e.g. trigger, ui events will bubble up and cause the message to reappear
Mark: right, but the context is
focused enough here that we could get those details
right...i.e. no trigger in the initial modules
... then we need to clearly define how these controls behave to
avoid these problems
... for example, by narrowly restricting the events you
subscribe for (as target not bubble, for example)
... need both target and bubble for different scenarios, but we
haven't spec'ed which we need and when
John: we might need to say something doesn't bubble outside of message, needs more xml events machinery
Mark: we would need to be clear
in our module, not just attach for a mouseover but only on the
element that applies etc
... easier to define since it's a small space
John: when we provide not just message but hint and help too, how would we tell people to make those work if they have controls in them
Mark: in the way i just said,
they only fire when element they're attached to is targeted --
this is for implementors not authors
... markup is normal xforms markup
... given we wouldn't have xml events in this first module, we
probably couldn't have an explicit event binding for
message
... or put onclick="DOMActivate"
c/DOMActivate/message.activate()
Mark: candidate for module #2 might be xml events
Steven: but it's already modularized
Mark: so we could pull this together if we needed to
John: how do i filter on events
targeted to my parent, just in xml events?
... could we have a new event like ev:sourcetarget that would
allow for this filtering?
... to avoid the bubbling out of our children problem --
retriggering ourselves
<nick> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xml-events-qname-2.mod
John: almost like we want to say "message means stop propagation for all children"...
Leigh: then we won't get submit propagated outside of the dialog
John: but the default processing still happens
<nick> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xml-events-2.mod
John: we really need phase="target" in xml events
Mark: but we could do this in
prose, telling implementors what the behavior should be --
offer the semantics not implementation
... we could add xml events from day 1 but that might be too
much...need more incremental approach
John: don't we need to specify the joint behavior of these specs?
Mark: these issues arise already today
Uli: is this endless loop really a problem?
Mark: in my example, the message
element is a template, moved elsewhere in the tree, so any
bubbling of events is not a problem in terms of triggering the
message
... we could define the behavior of the module to require this
"disconnected" behavior -- in its own display space
John: yes, this would solve a lot
of problems
... vs. for repeat where we defined the variable elements to be
part of the original tree
Mark: there are lots of details
in terms of how the template (and styling) are used to create
the instance to be displayed
... so again we just need to specify in prose what we want the
bubble/triggering behavior to be
John: problem is we said there's
already an xml events profile around, so there's another way to
activate the message and one which could well cause the bubble
problem
... I want that to mean ev:phase="target"
... so don't we need the document that says how to combine
these...
... so it has to go into the message module, which doesn't
depend on xml events
Mark: we can talk about dom
events in the message module, not xml events
... so we should define the xforms-hint event in this module,
but not say how it's fired
<John_Boyer> break
Mark: our module documents might
be more informal than a traditional spec
... more like the pattern discussion yesterday
... list elements, examples, give events that are part of the
package and their behavior
... effectively have defined the interface
... but elements and event names are still independent of
implementation, which i think is preferable
<John_Boyer> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_Future_Features
John: under our "modularization of existing patterns" category
Mark: we could just call this the "XForms Message Module"
Steven: yup
John: want to avoid misunderstanding that it can only be used in xforms
Mark: want to use this as on-ramp for xforms
John: so once you have it you might want more xforms
Leigh: must have a download so they can run with it
Mark: right, needs script impl,
screen shots, etc etc
... we're part of the ajax world but it's a different
approach
Leigh: we're going at this
backwards...
... they're not going to be interested in the spec, just the
impl
... the spec is the "Cambridge" approach
... we just need working code
Mark: i agree, when it gets to
ajaxian the headline is ... "new library available..." i.e.
it's about the code
... but the missing bit is the movement toward having standards
in the ajax world...we have more than a library, confirms to a
w3c standard
... we need to close the loop
Leigh: yes, but it can be done incrementally
Mark: i can do that, but i think it needs the module
Leigh: but your readers
don't
... by the time they want it it'll be ready...3 months from
now
Mark: if i were to set up a separate site, define the behavior, it wouldn't have the status of xforms
Leigh: yes, it would as a partial implementation
Mark: so i'm hearing that maybe that work should be part of the group
Leigh: this will push it along
faster
... you're not inventing new markup, it's refactoring and
getting xforms out there
John: i'm willing to participate
on the spec side -- it's like a mini-version of
submission
... there is spec work to do, it's not just pulling things out,
but there are important details
Leigh: or Mark does his code first, says it's part of the xforms wg, we do a draft, etc iterating code first
John: what are next steps>?
Uli: I'd like to have/see Mark's code
John: what are the next steps on code?
Mark: need to combine some
attributes into the hint element
... would be great to use in Chiba
John: so will you add phase=target to xml events?
<unl> Charlie, I would love to *help* Mark with the coding
even better
<John_Boyer> http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#ui-repeat-processing
<markbirbeck> Uli...thanks, by the way. :) The plan would be to open source this too, so there will be lots of opportunities to work on this.
The repeat item generation and repeat index update on insertion must behave as if it occurs in response to the xforms-insert event dispatched by the insert action. The index update must behave as if it occurs when the xforms-insert event reaches the target instance element in the capture phase.
John: does this make sense? is
there a notion of an event reaching the target element *in the
capture phase* ???
... i.e. before any other handlers that might be defined for
that event in the bubble phase
<Steven> http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/events.html#Events-flow-capture
Mark: i believe there are implementations in html events that put default processing at this point -- before bubbling
John: trying to read xml event spec but getting "abuse of IP address" blocking
<John_Boyer> lunch time
<klotz> http://xformstest.org/klotz/shibumiscript/
<nick> Scribe: Nick
John: Explains the XML eventing model
<klotz> you aren't dialed in..erik andi are here
<Steven> sorry
<Steven> our mistake
Steven: ev:phase:="capture" and ev:target="target' isn't allowed
John: Points out that http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-events/images/event-flow.png is confusing
<ebruchez> zakimthans
<ebruchez> thanks
John: The diagram suggests that there is a capture phase at target
MarkB: It is specified in DOM2 events that there is no capture phase in the target
John: The diagram suggests otherwise
Charlie: The paragraph under the diagram also hints that there is both a capture and bubble phase on target
John: So we need a spec
change
... Can we have an XForms implementation that does not have DOM
2 events?
MarkB: Don't think so
John: If you have an event that doesn't bubble, and it reaches target what is the phase then?
<markbirbeck> http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/events.html#Events-flow
MarkB: It is bubble
<markbirbeck> Key phrases in DOM 2 Events:
<markbirbeck> First, in 1.2.2:
<markbirbeck> "A capturing EventListener will not be triggered by events dispatched directly to the EventTarget upon which it is registered."
<markbirbeck> Second, in 1.2.3:
<markbirbeck> "Events which are designated as bubbling will initially proceed with the same event flow as non-bubbling events. The event is dispatched to its target EventTarget and any event listeners found there are triggered."
<John_Boyer> ACTION: John to fix XForms 1.1 wording for repeat processing to associate repeat index updating with capture phase on containing model, not target instance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-forms-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - John
<trackbot-ng> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jkugelma, jboyer)
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_Future_Features
<klotz> i have been on mute a while
<ebruchez> I am muted
<klotz> is it a scratchy noise?
<Steven> buzzing
<ebruchez> at least my Skype is supposed to mute me
<klotz> ok
<ebruchez> k
<klotz> mm mm mmmm mmm
Steven: More stuff working automatic
<klotz> no audio from you now
Steven: A lot of our problems with insert and delete are because we can't define constraints on structure (calculations)
John: We have a bullet 'Better authoring of repeating constructs'
Steven: You are asking for a
synchronization, is it really a calculate
... Typically it is not the structure that you are putting in
that is the structure that you want to send back
s/is not the structure that you want to send back/that is the structure that you want to send back/g
John: What sis the bullet point?
Steven: Structural constraints.
John: What does it fix?
Steven: I have to reconstruct the use cases I hit in the past
John: Web services is a good example
Steven: This is just a function
<Steven> but I believe we want constraints as well
<John_Boyer> ACTION: Steven to write up use cases and basic design for Structural Constraints [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-forms-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-450 - Write up use cases and basic design for Structural Constraints [on Steven Pemberton - due 2008-02-12].
John: Going back to the list (enumerates XForms 2.0 (high priority))
Steven: Packaging could be one of the new features
John: Don't we have that
partially in XForms 1.2 with 'Custom XPath functions'
... What is extra in XForms 2.0?
<ebruchez> ouch, gotta work on those XPath functions
<markbirbeck> I.e., http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2005/04/css-xforms-dependency-engine-and.html
<markbirbeck> :)
Charlie: Unifying our UI based events and model based events
<ebruchez> can't hear Charlie well, but I don't see improved UI events in the list of 1.2/2.0 features
<ebruchez> i.e. replacing the IMO broken current UI events
John: That is Drive UI (presentation) properties from data and calculates
Charlie: But also constraints on UI properties, e.g.: If the size of an image is dependant on a slider, when the size passes a threshold a red border is shown
MarkB: Whole the document is the instance
John: If we have structural constraints and the whole document we don't need repeat
Steven: Steven explains that repeat is constructional constraints plus ....
<Steven> Repeat is structural constraints from the instance to the UI
<Steven> We also need such constraints between instances
<Steven> and Charlie says between UIs
John: It is hard for digital signatures if the whole document is data, then you no longer have the markup as a separate thing to sign
<html>
<xf:model>
<xf:instance>
__delta__
</xf:instance>
</xf:model>
<body>
__presentation__
<body>
<ebruchez> I assume ;-)
<dsig:signature url-to-doc>
subtract delta
</desig:signature>
<ebruchez> oops, wrong correction then
<ebruchez> sorry about that
John: Explains why if the whole
document is the instance, breaks a signature of an application
(document without instance data)
... My reference system can refer to attributes in the whole
document, but if you keep following the attributes expressions
you get to the data
MarkB: Instsance is then meaningless
John: Instance has a meaning, it is the only thing that can change
<ebruchez> I understand how this helps XML signatures, but it also sounds restrictive
MarkB: That is leap for XForms, but it isn't a leap compared what they are doing in AJAX
<ebruchez> i.e. "all state information must lead to XML data"
MarkB: Example before we had output mediatype="image/*" we had the value of the output to create the image element. But now you can't nor more dynamically change the size of the image
John: I like driving UI
properties from data, but I want to identify the 'data'
... Now we say that the referencing engine is limited to the
instance
MarkB: <xf:output ref="..." style="with: { @width}" />
<img src="{@url}" />
MarkB: In current browsers it is easy to handle 'unknown' elements, but not for values of attruributes
<xf:superbind nodeset="xf:output/@style"/> will enable our calculates on the style attribute on xf:output elements (style="with: { @width}" )
<xf:output ...>
<xf:???? ref="@width" class="..."/>
</xf:outpu>
<xf:output ...>
<xf:constraint origin="@width" newvalue="here()/css:style/@width"/>
</xf:output>
<ebruchez> <tr class="{if (position() mod 2 = 0) then 'class1' else 'class2'}">
<ebruchez> that's what you should be able to write
klotz: This can solve styling rows with alternating color
<xf:output ...>
<xf:constraint nodeset="@width" target="here()/css:style/@width" calculate="."/>
John: One of the things that jumps out is integration and generalisation
<ebruchez> (gotta go for ~1 h)
<klotz> http://xformstest.org/klotz/shibumiscript/
mute, klotz
<markbirbeck> http://www.svgopen.org/2004/papers/ConstraintSVG/
<markbirbeck> e.g.: c:constraint attributeName="x" value="id('c')/@cx"/>
<klotz> sorry dunno what the noise was.
<John_Boyer> ACTION: Steven to write strawman proposal for Repeat Pattern [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-forms-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-451 - Write strawman proposal for Repeat Pattern [on Steven Pemberton - due 2008-02-12].
<Steven> I hate to say this (sort of) but we were doing presentation constraints in the late 80's. Here is a paper by a student of mine from 1992: http://www.cwi.nl/ftp/CWIreports/AA/CS-R9262.pdf
<Steven> "Maintaining presentation invariants in the Views system"
<img....>
<xf:output ref="x">
<xf:setvalue ev:event="xvc" ref="document()//img[@id='blurp']/@y" value="a+b"/>
</xf:output>
</img>
Steven: Explains two way constraints
Charlie: Components and constraints then?
John: Some don't fall in any of
those two
... Some are maybe just usability patterns
MarkB: Explains how 'XBL' can be
added to XHTML as a module
... Submission should be a Module, that isn't 'constrained' to
XML
JohnB: In my view that is the
instance module, that is causing the support of for example
JSON
... Should 'Need event for submission result received' be part
of XForms 1.2?
Charlie: Where are the models listed?
JohnB: There is no clear line between XForms 1.2 and 2.0 with modularization
<klotz> yes, i am still muted for my sins
<ebruchez> ok
<klotz> i am muted
<klotz> break?
JohnB: Is it ok that 'Integrated Validation and Recalculation' is under constraint
Uli: What does it mean? Make it one step?
JohnB: Correct
Nick: Isn't Integrated Validation and Recalculation a sub bullet from MIP functions (when using validity in a calculate/constraint)
Uli: What would be the name the now we have recalculate and revalidate
John: Just recalculate -> validity should be checked automaticly
JohnB: a favorite of mine is
User-defined model item properties
... Better expression of default values maybe is XForms
1.2
... Do we need to do work for SCXML integration
<ebruchez> I don't think so
Charlie: Not for us I think, they
need to consume our model
... When we modularize everything
JohnB: I think we should create a bullet Modularization not in XForms 1.2 nor in 2.0, it is separate of the version
MarkB: Explains XBL and XBL 2.0
Leigh, Charlie and MarkB: Have a discussion about advantages and disadvantages of XBL
in relation with using it in XForms
JohnB: I updated http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_Future_Features
... Goes over the XForms Modularization bullets
... Adds modules Action binding module, Repeat module,Switch
module, Group module, Selection controls module, Simple
controls module
Charlie: Why is Selection controls module a separate module?
JohnB: Not sure, we can have Core
UI module and Container module
... What is a good name for non-container form controls
<ebruchez> "leaf" form controls?
<klotz> core or basic would imply you plan to expand around them; leaf or single-node would imply you plan to expand to ones that dont' bind to a single node
<unl> Atomic would be fine, since it indicates that these do not contain other controls
<ebruchez> Well, in a tree of controls, they are actually leaves. Extension occurs by adding controls to container controls.
JohnB: We will add a xf:model model
discussion about the names of the modules
should we call it XForms model module or Model model used in XForms
MarkB: Maybe not all modules should be XForms modules (e.g: label)
JohnB: If label becomes a module should we reconsider the binding mechanism, not only containment, and for example reintroduce the 'for' attribute
<Steeeven> trackbot-ng, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/beforehand/aforewords/ Succeeded: s/accuracy/accuracy/ Succeeded: s/ i / I / Succeeded: s/spec's/spec'ed/ Succeeded: i/i can't hear Mark/Topic: XForms Modularization Succeeded: s/buble/bubble/ Succeeded: s/cacluta/calculate/ Succeeded: s/is not the structure that you want to send back/that is the structure that you want to send back/ FAILED: s/is not the structure that you want to send back/that is the structure that you want to send back/g Succeeded: s/Steven: What sis the bullet point?/John: What sis the bullet point?/ Succeeded: s/John: Structural constraints./Steven: Structural constraints./ Succeeded: s/Packagings/Packaging/ Succeeded: s/_delta_/_data_/ Succeeded: s/_data_/_delta_/ Succeeded: s/this is/is/ Succeeded: s/model model/model module/ Found Scribe: CharlieW Inferring ScribeNick: CharlieW Found Scribe: Nick Inferring ScribeNick: nick Scribes: CharlieW, Nick ScribeNicks: CharlieW, nick WARNING: Replacing list of attendees. Old list: Forms Leigh_Klotz New list: Forms Forms.a ebruchez klotz Default Present: Forms, Forms.a, ebruchez, klotz Present: Nick Keith John_Boyer Mark_Birbeck Steven Uli Charlie Leigh Got date from IRC log name: 05 Feb 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-forms-minutes.html People with action items: john steven WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]