15:41:21 RRSAgent has joined #forms 15:41:21 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-irc 15:41:28 rrsagent, make log public 15:42:11 John_Boyer has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0021.html 15:42:12 wellsk has joined #forms 15:42:43 Meeting: Weekly Forms WG Teleconference 15:42:47 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0021.html 15:42:51 Chair: John 15:42:55 Scribe: Leigh 15:43:00 scribenick: klotz 15:43:10 Regrets: None 15:44:04 HTML_Forms()10:45AM has now started 15:44:11 +John_Boyer 15:44:38 +wellsk 15:44:41 -John_Boyer 15:44:42 +John_Boyer 15:45:04 +[IBM] 15:45:12 zakim, [ibm] is wiecha 15:45:12 +wiecha; got it 15:46:25 nick1 has joined #forms 15:46:35 zakim, code? 15:46:35 the conference code is 36767 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), nick1 15:46:38 +??P3 15:47:13 +Nick_van_den_Bleeken 15:47:15 zakim, ??P3 is ebruchez 15:47:15 +ebruchez; got it 15:47:32 +??P5 15:47:49 zakim, I am ??P5 15:47:49 +prb; got it 15:49:19 unl has joined #forms 15:49:19 zakim, who is here? 15:49:19 On the phone I see John_Boyer, wellsk, wiecha, ebruchez, Nick_van_den_Bleeken, prb 15:49:21 On IRC I see unl, nick1, wellsk, RRSAgent, Zakim, John_Boyer, prb, wiecha, ebruchez, klotz, markbirbeck, Steven, trackbot 15:50:17 + +49.307.544.aaaa 15:50:39 zakim, +49.307.544.aaaa is me 15:50:39 +unl; got it 15:51:02 previous call overrunning... 15:51:34 zakim, mute me 15:51:34 unl should now be muted 15:53:33 agenda+ relax NG description of XForms 15:54:05 zakim, dial steven-617 15:54:05 ok, Steven; the call is being made 15:54:07 +Steven 15:57:14 +Leigh_Klotz 15:58:10 Thank you Paul 15:58:11 Scribe: Paul 15:58:18 scribenick: prb 15:58:51 TOPIC: Upcoming Telecons 15:59:00 Steven: chairing next week 15:59:25 John: should be just same as current agenda, sans anything done 15:59:41 John: precede important topics with * 16:00:17 zakim, code? 16:00:22 the conference code is 36767 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck 16:00:25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0017.html 16:00:50 TOPIC: next FtF 16:00:50 +markbirbeck 16:01:22 John: travel difficult for some, worth raising subject of virtualisation 16:01:44 John: difficult to get more than 8 hours in a day, for all timezones 16:02:05 John: virtual FtF should be split, 2 days in one week, then 2 day s in next 16:02:30 John: whichever FtF this is done for, if any, 16:02:45 Charlie: understands travel difficulties 16:02:55 Charlie: pessimistic about approval 16:03:22 klotz: budget OK for one trip this year 16:03:44 same here, the Mountain View meeting doesn't imply any travel for me 16:04:12 I can make the Feb meeting 16:04:33 zakim, who is noisy? 16:04:34 Nick, please phone in again 16:04:42 -Nick_van_den_Bleeken 16:04:45 klotz, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Boyer (29%), wellsk (6%), Nick_van_den_Bleeken (29%) 16:04:47 nick: (problems on line) already have tickets for Google, Amsterdam is close, less problems 16:04:49 zakim, code? 16:04:49 the conference code is 36767 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), nick 16:05:31 +Nick_van_den_Bleeken 16:05:58 John: easier question is: do we want Amsterdam as virtual, or should we proceed with actual face to face 16:06:30 (Me neither ;-) ) 16:06:33 same for me Amsterdam isn't a problem for me 16:06:39 Mark: I abstain, as Amsterdam is easy for me, so people with more issues should say 16:07:08 klotz: If we decide now that we have virtual ftf, and it works, we may never meet again 16:07:42 klotz: we should postpone the decision until summer, don't see what giving up buys us 16:08:19 q+ 16:08:27 Mark: when we talked about doing it London, I was planning other things, such as XForms Day School, around it, as we have all world's XForms experts in one place at a time, we can do that sort of thing 16:08:39 Klotz: that's not just location, but planning, 16:09:01 mark: another way to look at it is: how many can say now that they can go? 16:09:10 ack Steven 16:09:27 Mark: all europeans can go 16:10:02 Steven: moved to amsterdam as I couldn't get funding to go to london, but if Mark organises other things, I can get funding from other sources to give presentations 16:10:30 Steven: not much difference between Amsterdam and London, if other things were happening, then I can get to London, and happy to do so 16:10:53 John: interesting, as it amounts to Charlie organising an IBM location, and Mark organising other things 16:11:21 Mark: roughly, I'd do the running around and evaluating places and dinner etc. 16:11:52 Mark: IBM have big centre near the river near my office, so I can check it out in the weeks beforehand , and I'm open to doing so 16:12:03 John: we don't know if Charlie will get approval to go yet 16:12:14 Charlie: I can coordinate rooms etc. 16:12:37 Mark: I pictured a Ubiquity afternoon, or similar, around the WG meeting 16:13:04 Charlie: if john and I can get approval for one trip, we need to consider whether London or San Jose 16:13:37 John: I don't have approval yet, but I didn't get it last time, and I was cancelled before, and I have outstanding airline credit enough for San Jose, but not Europe 16:13:56 JOhn: more likely I'll get approval, but I don't know what happens in June 16:14:25 s/JOhn/John/ 16:14:25 Mark: didn't mean to divert conversation from next FtF, just following Leigh's statement 16:14:44 John: assuming most people can make a live meeting ... 16:15:20 Klotz: Amsterdam is good, as the PTB are used to seeing it, 16:15:48 Mark: maybe we can do extras in Amsterdam, did you mention about CWI possibilities 16:16:08 Steven: w3c NL is based here, and the new man there may wish to make his mark 16:16:21 John: do we want to leave it in Amsterdam 16:16:34 klotz: I suggest we agree some parameters now, 16:16:49 Charlie: I can't book until three months before, 16:17:12 klotz: revisit in early march, do we need to gather any new information by then? 16:17:26 charlie: what is economic situation? 16:17:44 John: the only people who will have real issues, are charlie and I 16:18:02 Klotz: actually, I have approval, but it could be taken away 16:18:20 John: I can't think of anything else we'd be waiting on 16:18:21 @john: so lets a ftf in victoria ;-) 16:19:07 Charlie: consensus sounds like go ahead with Google then decide in early march about European one 16:19:27 TOPIC: XForms 1.1 situation 16:20:04 ACTION: John to publish new firefox implementation reports from Keith 16:20:04 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - John 16:20:04 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jkugelma, jboyer) 16:20:53 Keith: Firefox 3 they have done a bit of work in, and official release is behind development cycle, it was hard to get development version 16:21:39 I got official release, and tested the various failures, and corrected some of the issues in Chapter 10, and submitted back to group, >80% now pass 16:21:45 zakim, who is noisy? 16:21:56 Steven, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds 16:22:02 wellsk: It was part of triage 16:22:32 John: maybe someone can take a copy of our so called loan form and make it work 16:22:46 John: it brings up issues of test suite maintenance 16:23:20 wellsk: I want to see if anyone was able to take over responsibility of test suite in the WG 16:23:44 John: that's important, as we go on, there may be tweaks to the suite 16:24:07 wellsk: I don't mind taking responsibility until someone else can take over 16:24:23 john: are we looking for someone to take over after 1.1 16:24:43 agenda+report on EMC response on joining 16:25:00 wellsk: sooner if possible, but if I have to take 1.1 to PR, I don't mind. The level of commitment is not too great 16:25:56 John: there may be some cases that rely on some features that are difficult to implement in some processors, and this is the first time we are exercising such a large test suite. 16:26:37 John: for example. There are some issues that rely on replace="all", and in ubiquity, the best we can do is to defer to the browser, 16:26:59 klotz: is the issue getting the replace done, or getting the submit-done event 16:27:17 klotz: if it's simply getting the submit-done, we can make a case for that 16:27:45 klotz: if it is the whole package of this kind of submission, that's a different story 16:28:11 klotz: If it's just the event, then we could credibly change the spec 16:28:26 John: which would ripple into the test suite. 16:29:07 John: there are tests that are not testing replace=all, but use it to test something else in some way 16:29:48 John: If we make a change to the test, we need to ensure that it is in a way that makes it more likely that a test that has already passed will still pass 16:30:26 John: as the report from Uli showed us, we had 2 implementation reports roll in that had failures that showed the tests to be the problem 16:30:55 John: test suite maintenance after XForms 1.1 will certainly be an issue 16:31:29 John: is there anyone on the call that might be able to take that responsibility. It will come hand in hand with implementation report maintenance 16:31:51 zakim, mute me 16:31:51 markbirbeck should now be muted 16:32:02 John: what is the list of tests that only has one implementation that passes now 16:32:33 wellsk: I'll take that on and see what I can come up with 16:33:05 ACTION: wellsk produce a report of tests that are only passed by one implementation 16:33:05 Sorry, couldn't find user - wellsk 16:34:08 John: we need at least one more report, because we have a number of test that are only passed by one implementation in the two reports we have so far 16:34:43 John: possibly some people on the phone could contribute to Ubiquity, which would in turn require permissions from your managers 16:35:06 John: an implementation report from ubiquity is a few months out, and we're having a long delay here 16:35:30 wellsk: could we use the current status of ubiquity, and compare it to the other 2, would that be legitimate? 16:36:03 wellsk: I say this because of work I did with Markmc, that has it on a wiki page, we could use it as a start point 16:36:51 John: whichever ones pass now, could be counted against the feature list where we don't have two passing implmentations, but our conformance level is below 50% right now 16:37:32 John: in terms of keeping score, that would be safe, but we need to discuss it, as it is a signal that people should look at it, we can probably discuss it on ubiquity call tomorrow 16:37:56 John: are you OK looking at that for now to see where we need further implementation reports outside ubiquity 16:38:33 wellsk: fails won't be counted at all at this point, 16:38:47 John: it may be hard to track, as this will be changing over the coming weeks 16:39:22 John: you are producing a list of tests with less than two passes, and ubiquity as is can be used to compile that list 16:39:27 wellsk: I'm ok with that 16:39:33 zakim, unmute me 16:39:33 markbirbeck should no longer be muted 16:39:38 John: is there a way to get a report from chiba 16:40:00 nick: I don't think I'll be able to get a test report 16:40:31 markbirbeck: it's difficult for us to make both a formsPlayer report, and one for ubiquity 16:41:06 markbirbeck: if we can use this list, we can look at features and produce a partial report that fills some of the gaps 16:41:14 or it could drive the priorities in doing the ubiquity items too 16:41:27 john: good. there have been some reports with pass/fail/unknown 16:42:04 John: we can say that formsPlayer , as a long standing implmentation could help out, without committing to running all the tests 16:42:21 wiecha: this will help drive stategy in ubiquity 16:42:34 John: is that feasible for you mark 16:42:48 markbirbeck: is there a list already, or one in production 16:43:17 john: he is producing two lists, one being the most urgent, with no implementations, there are about 30 of those, I think 16:43:44 John: A starting report, where formsPlayer passes any of those tests, that would be most important 16:43:58 mark: then we need one 100% conformant implementation? 16:44:19 John: actually, we got rid of that requirement 16:44:33 triage, 2 failures list : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0012.html 16:44:33 s/we/w3c 16:44:43 John: any "MUST" feature must have two implementations, then any other, just one 16:45:07 John: Keith has one where neither Firefox nor EMC pass already 16:45:39 John: then he'll produce one where there is only one out of EMC, Firefox, or ubiquity that implement them 16:46:04 John: for example, mailto and file submissions, which ubiquity probably won't pass anyway 16:46:46 John: if this is a bad idea, speak up, the implementation report for ubiquity under IE7 is different to FF3. An implementation is browser+processor 16:47:18 you could add webkit to that list too 16:47:28 John: the world looks at us for cross-browser compliance, I'd like to test the waters, by submitting two implementation reports for ubiquity 16:47:47 John: it will have a big impact on xforms for html implementation 16:48:02 wiecha: three ways, for the webkit implementation 16:48:14 john: yes, when we have them for other browsers, submit them 16:48:20 wiecha: we have that now 16:48:29 John: but not an implementation report 16:49:08 John: "more than one" is what I'm getting at, and if anyone objects, I'll provide these arguments, as it does reflect the spirit of the w3c 16:49:12 agenda? 16:49:22 charlie: just making sure that any discussion includes the full set 16:49:49 charlie: we spend a fair amount in the team, dealing with this sort of thing 16:50:00 charlie: testing on different browsers 16:50:42 John: I can say right now, we do have a limited report, but we do have deviations between the two browsers we have reports for, and things like repeat don't work on Safari 16:51:16 John: Rounding off, we need to get 1.1 out of the door, it is a classic .1, being 50% bigger than .0 16:51:47 John: Can we get a limited Orbeon implementation report? Can you take that to management Erik 16:52:40 Erik: not much has changed, we are very busy, and it's difficult to get this into a plan, we can try to see if any of our user community might be able to help with all or part of the report, but we haven't yet put that call out. 16:52:58 Erik: but other than that, it is likely to get pushed further into the future 16:53:20 rrsagent, make minutes 16:53:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-minutes.html Steven 16:53:23 John: Great suggestion perhaps we can point them to Keith's work 16:53:59 John: The thing you have just suggested, Erik. Nick, could you take that back to Joren 16:54:23 Nick: We can focus on the tests that others fail 16:54:40 Keith: Is Firefox 2 a different implementation to FF3 16:55:35 John: I haven't thought so up to now. It's one thing to say we have an implmentation running on two completely separate browsers, but different versions of the same browser, (arbitrarily, I know) is different. 16:55:58 John: trying to spin different versions of the same branded browser, I can see objections 16:56:20 Keith: I just thought the question needed to be asked, I agree with you 16:56:40 John: I couldn't defend it, but I could defend totally different browser support 16:57:35 Steven: I have a "done" action item, to contact EMC, to invite them to the group, the sender says it's difficult, because of lawyers to get approval, but give me time, I think it would be good to do it 16:57:41 John: that's great news 16:57:59 Steven: they didn't create a report, just have an implementation? 16:58:06 John: they did send us a report 16:58:37 Steven: the other thing was that XHTML2 WG was asking for RelaxNG XForms schemata if anyone has them 16:59:02 klotz: there were the ones that Mica did, and I had a go at modularising them 16:59:27 Steven: I think there is an expert who wants to modularise XHTML RelaxNG 16:59:45 klotz: Nick and I have separate copies 16:59:53 s/Mica/Micah/ 16:59:56 klotz: shall I send it to you 17:00:09 Steven: Shane is the best person to send it to 17:00:49 John: under Action Items on the Agenda, there was a problem reported on copy and delete that we needed analysis done on 17:00:56 i/Steven: I have a "done" action item,/Topic: EMC joining Forms WG 17:01:10 klotz: I'll continue to promis to look at it. I'll try in the next two weeks 17:01:24 i/Steven: the other thing was/Topic: Relax schemas for XForms 17:01:30 rrsagent, make minutes 17:01:30 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-minutes.html Steven 17:01:54 John: It would be a good idea to make a quick pass at the action item list. There have been a number done by a number of people, but haven't been reported 17:02:13 i/John: It would be a good idea /Topic: Actions 17:02:33 John: I'm looking at the latest list. Starting at Mark's list - have you looked yet? 17:02:46 Mark: not yet, I meant to do so this morning 17:03:00 Steven: can you paste a link, John? 17:03:09 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0023.html 17:03:10 for the minutes 17:03:51 Mark, can you lookk now, and paste into IRC any that are no longer relevant or are done 17:03:53 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/att-0023/actions-2009-01-12.html 17:04:28 This is done: Charlie Wiecha to review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xml-events-20070216/ and present straw set of comments for discussion and approval at F2F. 17:04:31 Mine are up to date, so skipping through to Erik, none look like they are top priority 17:04:41 This is done: Charlie to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms-tf/2008Apr/0025.html 17:05:15 John: Paul I think you've done 1 and 2 17:05:21 This is done but we might recombine depending on modularization discussion: Charlie Wiecha to refactor http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Jul/att-0001/index-all.html a data island and the setvalue/insert/delete. 17:05:23 s/2/3 17:05:47 klotz has joined #forms 17:05:51 [oops] Paul -- your substitute probably got targeted at my URL,...sorry 17:05:57 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0023.html 17:06:23 zakim ,unmute me 17:06:26 rrsagent, make minutes 17:06:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-minutes.html Steven 17:06:27 my other actions related to work underway for current modules 17:06:34 John: Is Uli still on the line? 17:06:35 zakim, unmute me 17:06:35 unl should no longer be muted 17:06:44 I would say that Action 2006-03-02.5 is no longer relevant. 17:07:01 Uli: I'm just looking on my list, something is quite old, "context everywhere" 17:07:11 John: I think that's one's done 17:07:23 I think that Action 2007-05-02.4 was eventually completed by Paul. 17:07:26 Uli: I had a look at the Editor's Draft, but I can't see it 17:07:50 Action 2008-08-20.1 is done; I integrated it into the editor's draft and sent the results to John Boyer; I don't know if it was merged in 17:07:50 Sorry, couldn't find user - 2008-08-20.1 17:07:55 I have done many of the actions, I'll give myself an action to tell Nick which ones 17:08:02 John: I think we decided against it in 1.1, it's 1.2 and ended up going into the binding attributes module, so it's no longer an action item 17:08:23 I completed Action 2008-07-23.4 17:08:47 I completed Action 2008-01-09.4 17:08:53 John: something about preparing a discussion about submission module. That has slipped by on the agenda, is that something that can be done for next week 17:09:18 John: hopefully, steven, that can be on next weeks agenda, otherwise, Uli, send a reminder 17:09:26 I completed Action 2007-05-16.3 17:09:32 Uli: I think we had discussion about xforms-serialize event, 17:09:39 s/3008Jul/2008Jul 17:09:49 John: perhaps you can post to the email list, and get some discussion going there 17:09:51 Kenneth and John completed Action 2007-03-07.1 17:09:52 s/1 and 2/1 and 3/ 17:10:15 I've not been doing anything special with the XML Schemas for XForms, so I think that Action 2008-04-09.1, Action 2008-02-28.2 and Action 2007-06-13.1 are no longer relevant. 17:10:17 zakim, mute me 17:10:17 unl should now be muted 17:10:21 Steven: I've given myself an action item to tick off those that I have actually done 17:10:55 John: I did some triage on this yesterday, there are some shorter action item lists for some of the people not coming regularly, but they are not high priority 17:10:58 Two from Kenneth have been done. 17:11:10 John: there are two from Kenneth that have been done, 17:11:15 I also don't think that Action 2007-09-26.1 is relevant anymore. 17:11:25 John: Nick, as maintainer, I presume that your list is up to date 17:12:03 Leigh: I have gotten one again today, is to seek expert help on the RelaxNG schema 17:12:17 John: one last easy topic - specifications with multiple modules, 17:13:16 John: last week, there was some discussion around Nick's bind module, and it seemed that it might be easier to modularise if we don't go the whole hog on cutting it down into one spec per module straight away 17:14:08 John: perhaps some of us could pool our editorial resources and combine MIPS, binding attributes - it would be easier for Nick to talk about custom MIPS if he didn't have to reference different specs 17:14:56 John: on Charlie's side, there's a lower level module, and a higher data processing module with delete etc in it, and it would be easier to refer to them within the same spec - how do people feel? 17:15:05 Wiecha: THat makes pragmatic sense 17:15:17 Leigh: How is it different to what we are doing 17:16:05 s/TH/Th/ 17:16:42 +1 17:16:45 John: We can discuss on the list if this is the wrong direction, Nick and I can exchange emails on collaboration, 17:17:05 Nick: I'm leaving on vacation next week, so there will be delay 17:17:35 John: I have to be at LotusSphere next week, but after that, perhaps we'll have greater velocity 17:17:41 -Steven 17:17:43 -Leigh_Klotz 17:17:45 -markbirbeck 17:17:45 -wiecha 17:17:46 -wellsk 17:17:46 -unl 17:17:49 -Nick_van_den_Bleeken 17:17:51 -ebruchez 17:17:51 -John_Boyer 17:17:58 zakim, who is here? 17:17:58 On the phone I see prb 17:18:02 On IRC I see klotz, unl, nick, wellsk, RRSAgent, Zakim, John_Boyer, prb, ebruchez, markbirbeck, Steven, trackbot 17:18:05 -prb 17:18:07 zakim, list attendees 17:18:08 HTML_Forms()10:45AM has ended 17:18:10 Attendees were John_Boyer, wellsk, wiecha, Nick_van_den_Bleeken, ebruchez, prb, unl, Steven, Leigh_Klotz, markbirbeck 17:18:15 rrsagent, make minutes 17:18:15 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-minutes.html John_Boyer 17:18:18 rrsagent, make minutes 17:18:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-minutes.html Steven 17:18:23 sorry, Steven, I don't know what conference this is 17:19:10 rrsagent, bye 17:19:10 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-actions.rdf : 17:19:10 ACTION: John to publish new firefox implementation reports from Keith [1] 17:19:10 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-irc#T16-20-04 17:19:10 ACTION: wellsk produce a report of tests that are only passed by one implementation [2] 17:19:10 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-irc#T16-33-05