13:11:38 RRSAgent has joined #forms 13:11:38 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/03/24-forms-irc 13:11:47 rrsagent, make log public 13:11:52 rrsagent, this will be forms 13:11:52 I'm logging. I don't understand 'this will be forms', John_Boyer. Try /msg RRSAgent help 13:11:59 zakim, this will be forms 13:11:59 ok, John_Boyer, I see Team_(forms)13:09Z already started 13:12:17 zakim, code? 13:12:17 the conference code is 26634 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), wiecha 13:12:57 klotz has left #forms 13:13:10 Steeeven has joined #forms 13:13:21 hi 13:13:23 klotz has joined #forms 13:13:39 hi 13:13:56 OK net up but phone not yet 13:15:05 +[IBMCambridge] 13:15:14 zakim, who is here? 13:15:14 On the phone I see John_Boyer, [IBMCambridge] 13:15:16 On IRC I see klotz, Steven, RRSAgent, Zakim, ebruchez, wiecha, John_Boyer, raman, trackbot 13:15:20 nick has joined #forms 13:15:38 zakim, [IBM has Charlie, Steven, Nick, Erik, Leigh 13:15:38 +Charlie, Steven, Nick, Erik, Leigh; got it 13:17:48 Steven_ has joined #forms 13:19:05 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/FtF_2010_03_24_Agenda 13:19:56 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/FtF_2010_03_24_Agenda 13:20:02 hair: Steven, Leigh 13:20:09 Chair: Steven, Leigh 13:20:33 Topic: Agenda bashing 13:21:27 Agenda + http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Mar/0027.html 13:21:45 Agenda + http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Mar/0028.html 13:23:45 Scribe: wiecha 13:23:53 1 line summary of each agenda item 13:23:58 rechartering looks good so far 13:24:13 Steven sending request to w3m with details for final approval 13:24:21 who to invite to join the WG? 13:24:40 we should list our preferred invited experts and talk with other companies soliciting participation 13:24:57 Test Suite agenda topic: 13:25:05 were going to do "bashing" 13:25:11 John: what does this entail? 13:25:14 Steven: create some tests 13:25:36 Nick: were some tests recently that we thought would go into new version of the test suite 13:25:45 UI events: Erik 13:26:14 Erik: at last F2F we had some agreement except Uli's objections on changes 13:26:32 in my opinion, would like to get closure on general concepts 13:26:46 toward future version of the spec 13:26:50 XML Events2 13:26:53 have a draft 13:26:58 taking further 13:27:03 who owns? Mark and??? 13:27:37 shane 13:28:35 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts/#xml-events2 13:29:07 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-xml-events-20081223/ 13:29:53 depending on Mark's role I (Steven) might take this over as I was an editor of version 1 13:30:16 JSON 13:32:52 need better extensibility for submission and respose handling 13:32:55 XPath 2.0 13:33:14 discussion of how/when to move to offering xpath 2.0 support 13:33:42 Erik: last discussion was around function signatures 13:33:49 might need more work 13:34:06 one question was whether signature of xforms xpath functions should be compatible with 1.0 or native 2.0 13:34:22 e.g. date function in 2.0 can return xsd date which is not in 1.0 13:34:28 Nick: both arguments and return types 13:35:10 downside is won't be backwards compatible 13:35:33 Erik: hard to say...don't have much experience 13:35:46 if you change sigs you'll have to rewrite. but you don't have to use 2.0 13:35:51 new forms would hopefully start in 2.0 13:36:05 Steven: would declare at the top which version is being used 13:36:18 John: understood that 1.0 is required and 2.0 is recommended 13:37:08 Erik: would have to cast the strings into native types 13:37:14 Custom XPath: Erik 13:37:38 at last F2F followed up by contacting xslt wg sent to the list...we should review 13:38:21 Michael Kay also made recommendations based in Erik's questions...should review 13:38:30 can then complete draft spec already started 13:38:37 Node creation functions: Nick 13:38:46 did some work on the wiki 13:38:50 functions to create nodes from strings 13:39:24 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/Node_%27create%27_functions 13:39:44 subtrees of XML from data 13:40:14 Components/patterns 13:41:27 could discuss some work on composite patterns such as master/detail and list to list 13:41:29 node creation functions : the discussion started when sequences were 'needed' for child content 13:41:34 is there an opportunity to simplify this 13:41:42 then package as components...which leads to the 13:41:44 XBL topic 13:41:58 Erik: not the answer for everything, solid base 13:42:13 should consider requirements for custom components 13:42:25 Steven: good approach, main approach is it's at odds with declarative nature 13:42:31 needs js 13:42:38 Erik: doesn't require JS 13:43:11 the way we use it the components are 100% XForms plus XBL, does not require JS 13:43:23 would be good to look at some examples in Orbeon 13:43:39 Nick: didn't take me long to write some custom components based on that approach 13:43:43 Variables: Erik 13:43:54 maybe naming is the issue to discuss 13:44:01 don't think we have spec ready text 13:44:06 Leigh: doesn't include AVTs 13:44:14 John: scope and lifetime are the big topics 13:44:26 closures etc 13:44:35 External models: have text to review 13:44:45 XForms for HTML 13:44:56 Leigh: would like to get agreement on scope for this doc 13:45:04 and then quick outline 13:45:11 Live documents: Steven 13:45:34 alter the document the form is in, e.g. tying class name to dependency graph 13:45:48 Erik: options could be special control 13:45:55 Map/Reduce support 13:46:06 make our constraints work on structure of instances as well as values 13:46:20 e.g. structural binds 13:46:22 I am adding the one-liners to http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/FtF_2010_03_24_Agenda#Agenda 13:46:41 map/reduce are structural transforms 13:46:51 Leigh: what about controls for recursive or nested structures 13:47:06 e.g. trees 13:47:39 separate topic from map/reduce 13:47:43 Putting Control in Charge 13:47:55 @ref vs @nodeset vs @select 13:48:11 Erik: more general question of whether control is conceptually in charge of binding policy 13:48:21 vs. external attributes determining how control behaves 13:48:44 as implementor my impression is we can't escape control identity object which defines behavior 13:48:49 could name attributes however... 13:48:57 Errata... 13:50:25 links to two added above 13:53:59 Topic: Rechartering 13:54:09 HP and Adobe will be joining 13:54:32 Leigh: not sure about HP, has anyone talked with them? 13:55:13 John: they are doing interesting stuff with interactive docs and workflow...could be those folks 13:56:06 Steven: other candidates? 13:56:12 and for invited experts? 13:57:09 should invite Joern as expert 13:59:08 Alain Couthures 13:59:13 and Mark 13:59:45 and XRX folks 13:59:51 Kurt Cagle 14:00:06 Dan McCreary 14:00:44 EMC 14:00:46 AmpleSDK 14:01:22 Jadu 14:02:25 Atlassian 14:03:13 Nuxeo 14:03:18 Alfresco 14:10:36 raman has joined #forms 14:14:46 Charlie: does it make sense to make better connection with the XML activity? 14:15:04 John: what's the benefit of being a separate activity just for XForms? 14:15:20 Steven: we could explore joining the XML coordination call 14:15:35 but moving the WG might be hard since the staff time there is very constrained now 14:16:33 John: is the ubi-web domain a better placement for forms? 14:33:26 -John_Boyer 14:34:57 Steven to explore joining the XML coord call, Leigh to participate if ok 14:48:27 respose from XML CG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Mar/0030.html 14:48:35 s/respose/response 14:53:26 zakim, code? 14:53:26 the conference code is 26634 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), John_Boyer 14:53:42 +John_Boyer 14:55:14 [back] 14:56:35 klotz has joined #forms 15:02:46 raman has joined #forms 15:04:22 Topic: Errata 15:04:23 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Mar/0027.html 15:04:48 The appearance attribute is not the same format as @class 15:05:08 does not take a space-separated list 15:05:18 Nick: what to do with conflicts? 15:05:22 e.g. minimal and full 15:05:33 John: right, could do that but it's really a hint 15:06:04 Erik: CSS handles conflicts with well-defined rules 15:06:12 John: right 15:06:21 CSS defines how to resolve conflicts 15:06:29 Steven: not really conflicts, just get applied in order 15:06:44 Erik: we'd have to specifiy 15:06:49 John: not really, it's a hin 15:06:52 s/hin/hint 15:07:00 Leigh: any QNames 15:07:23 John: yes 15:07:39 Leigh: thought we discussed this before and decided not to 15:08:00 Steven: changed the def to one of our and any number of others 15:08:19 Erik: not really a solution, can't say "minimal full" 15:08:46 are we happy to do that strict validation? 15:08:59 John: I'd be happy with just a space separated list...just pick the first one 15:09:02 Erik: or the last one 15:09:20 Leigh: so we could just restrict it to one of ours 15:09:58 John: now we've said you can only have one entry...what happens if you put multiple in now? 15:10:07 Nick: fails in Chiba 15:10:51 Leigh: if it's not defined it's undefined 15:11:06 Erik: doesn't this go against interop? 15:11:20 Steven: but interop is in terms of what's defined...rest is ok 15:12:09 Nick: could be confusing across multiple implementations 15:13:34 this is really a new feature, not an erratum 15:13:48 Leigh: but this shouldn't affect a conformance test 15:14:18 similar to loosening order for help, hint, alert 15:15:34 Nick: think it will be confusing 15:16:12 Erik: what are the use cases? 15:16:20 Leigh: two orthogonal things 15:16:57 John: an example in the email is minimal but also control what's shown when collapsed 15:18:44 e.g. full state/province names when pull down is open but abbreviated codes when selection is done 15:19:50 Leigh: seeing lots of straight equality tests in existing code 15:21:56 John: so I could just use a foreign-namespaced attribute for now 15:22:44 if nobody is using this feature in 1.1 I'll do that 15:24:14 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Mar/0028.html 15:26:36 what are implementors currently doing for these? 15:26:46 Erik: yes, we do encode these 15:26:54 John: spec is not clear 15:27:56 http://www.w3.org/XML/2007/04/hrri/draft-walsh-tobin-hrri-00.html 15:28:24 http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#anyURI 15:28:29 Erik: there's also some work in HTML5 on this 15:29:02 John: I think XML schema is clear on what is valid URI 15:29:08 so we should be able to check for this 15:29:33 http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/#link-locators 15:30:30 so form authors could use actual spaces and form processor would encode 15:31:01 encoding is idempotent 15:31:20 Erik: right, we don't have to reinvent 15:32:07 browsers do this today for links input by users 15:32:25 John: yes, would apply for input values that are URLs 15:32:54 Erik: we now apply this only to @src, @schema, etc submission/resource but not in data 15:34:44 John: the internationalization wg also gave this feedback as last call to 1.1 15:35:00 related to IRIs 15:36:17 will increasingly be seen in URLs for asian sites as new characters are used 15:36:45 got response from @ndw: HRRI came out as this note: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-leiri-20081103/ 15:37:50 John: yes, there's some work to look at future versions, but what should we say about 1.1? 15:38:06 Erik: didn't think it was expected for 1.1 15:38:11 John: I did think it was 15:38:48 Erik: as form author I would expect it, but as implementor the spec is not clear 15:39:10 would be a step toward more user-friendliness 15:39:20 John: though it was obvious 15:39:23 s/though/thought 15:39:40 we encode the parameter phase 15:41:21 Erik: want to use leiri algorithm 15:41:33 Leigh: doesn't handle & 15:43:22 http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/#link-locators 15:43:55 John: we could do this in a future version, but what about 1.1? 15:43:56 "The Recommendation states that "it is impractical for processors to check that a value is a context-appropriate URI reference," thus freeing schema processors from having to validate the correctness of the URI." 15:44:19 http://books.xmlschemata.org/relaxng/ch19-77009.html 15:45:49 Nck: ...examples of difficult encodings... 15:45:52 15:46:11 15:48:10 http://www.boe.org/my?url=boe?foo 15:51:41 Erik: seems clear that some type of encoding should take place but not sure exactly what 15:51:50 we don't know enough to resolve 15:52:16 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/href/draft 15:53:58 15:56:02 http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2368.html describes encoding of mailto: 15:57:03 http://www.blackmesatech.com/2009/03/wah5/uricalc.html 15:59:00 John: we should either say we don't encode or point to a specific encoding policy we use 15:59:08 from 'Legacy extended IRIs for XML resource identification' Some productions are ambiguous. The "first-match-wins" (a.k.a. "greedy") algorithm applies. For details, see 16:02:02 Leigh: trying to encode when starting from a complete URL leads often to double encoding 16:02:14 unl has joined #forms 16:02:28 hi steven 16:02:37 Leigh: which will often be the case when starting from user-provided data 16:02:37 zakim, code? 16:02:38 the conference code is 26634 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Steven 16:09:30 John: for 1.1 the xlink encoding is the only reasonable one we have 16:09:44 Leigh: are you proposing this applies to calculated data as well? or just form text 16:10:00 John: applied at moment the URL is used...would not change instance data 16:10:05 nor the source document 16:10:29 get resource or src content and apply this encoding 16:10:42 Nick: if it's in the data w/dynamic URI this would apply 16:10:44 John: yes 16:11:33 http://ab.גדהוזח.ij/kl/mn/op.html 16:11:41 So the erratum would clarify whether the content is used directly or first encoded in this specific way 16:12:33 + +1.307.544.aaaa 16:12:47 http://ab.دخح.جثت/ij/kl/mn/op.html 16:12:48 zakim, +1.307.544.aaaa is me 16:12:48 +unl; got it 16:14:07 Erik: how does xlink relate to the leiri stuff? 16:14:20 John: i18n says anyuri is intended to be compatible 16:15:24 Steven: anyuri as lexical space which is what the user would expect. 16:15:31 John: right, e.g. an actual space character 16:15:45 so should actually work in the xforms processor 16:20:28 John: so should we issue a clarification that the anyURI encoding happens just before going over the wire? 16:20:32 Nick: nods 16:20:43 Steven: agree, would like an example of anyURI in lexical and value formats 16:20:49 Leigh: would like some test cases 16:21:14 John: yes, we have a few errata...should have a few tests for each one 16:21:49 Leigh: not clear there's even text associated with this...maybe a note 16:21:54 John: just a clarification 16:22:02 have seen implementations that don't do this encoding 16:22:09 so we ought to be saying something 16:22:18 Leigh: yes, but it's not a normative change 16:22:24 John: clarification not substantive erratum 16:22:56 Leigh: think we still need tests for double encoding problem 16:23:01 question marks etc 16:23:11 http://dir.google.com/Top/World/Chinese_Simplified/%E8%AE%A1%E7%AE%97%E6%9C%BA/" 16:23:19 to be sure implementors aren't calling the wrong encoders 16:23:26 http://dir.google.com/Top/World/Chinese_Simplified/计算机/ 16:24:12 Those two are equivalent 16:25:01 just as long as it doesn't require this to decide when to encode: http://dir.google.com/Top/World/Chinese_Simplified/%E8%AE%A1%E7%AE%97%E6%9C%BA/%E4%BA%BA%E5%B7%A5%E6%99%BA%E8%83%BD/ 16:26:15 there's a trailing space in http://dir.google.com/Top/World/Chinese_Simplified/计算机/%22 ;) 16:28:22 Leigh: I suggest we check with Larry given he's coordinating IRI work 16:28:31 John: yes, if we're going into IRI space in future versions 16:29:31 Leigh: he wrote both of these RFCs 16:31:01 Action: john_boyer to write up erratum text for encoding consistent with i18n and xlink recommendations 16:31:01 Sorry, couldn't find user - john_boyer 16:37:46 -John_Boyer 16:38:25 rrsagent, make minutes 16:38:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/03/24-forms-minutes.html John_Boyer 16:38:32 ebruchez has joined #forms 16:38:42 http://www.yelp.com/biz/indian-chili-cambridge 16:41:46 -[IBMCambridge] 16:42:09 -unl 16:42:11 Team_(forms)13:09Z has ended 16:42:13 Attendees were John_Boyer, Charlie, Steven, Nick, Erik, Leigh, unl 17:17:33 raman has joined #forms 17:17:56 dinner plans? 17:44:53 ebruchez has joined #forms 17:44:59 nick has joined #forms 17:46:58 Steven has joined #forms 17:47:29 zakim, code? 17:47:29 the conference code is 26634 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), John_Boyer 17:48:40 Team_(forms)13:09Z has now started 17:48:47 +John_Boyer 17:49:16 Steven, can you rejoin the teleconference when you guys start? 17:50:13 unl has joined #forms 17:54:04 -John_Boyer 17:54:05 Team_(forms)13:09Z has ended 17:54:05 Attendees were John_Boyer 17:58:38 unl has joined #forms 17:59:56 Steeeven has joined #forms 18:00:34 zakim, who is here? 18:00:34 apparently Team_(forms)13:09Z has ended, Steeeven 18:00:36 On IRC I see Steeeven, unl, Steven, nick, ebruchez, raman, RRSAgent, Zakim, John_Boyer, trackbot 18:01:23 Hi Steven, I rejoined a few minutes ago because it looked like you guys were back. But I am here and will join when you rejoin the teleconference 18:01:45 me too 18:02:01 Team_(forms)13:09Z has now started 18:02:08 +[IBMCambridge] 18:03:05 wiecha has joined #forms 18:03:07 zakim, code? 18:03:07 the conference code is 26634 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), John_Boyer 18:03:24 +John_Boyer 18:04:40 + +049307544aaaa 18:04:59 zakim, aaaa is Uli 18:05:00 +Uli; got it 18:05:00 zakim, +049307544aaaa is me 18:05:01 sorry, unl, I do not recognize a party named '+049307544aaaa' 18:05:17 zakim, uli is unl 18:05:17 +unl; got it 18:06:41 klotz has joined #forms 18:08:27 scribe: nick 18:08:47 TOPIC: UI Events 18:09:12 http://wiki.orbeon.com/forms/doc/developer-guide/xforms-refresh-events#TOC-Proposal 18:10:57 Erik: Currently he UI events don't work in a way a form author could use them in a reliable way 18:11:35 Erik: The current mechanism is based on a marking algorithm in the instance data 18:12:03 raman has joined #forms 18:12:11 Erik: For the form author the control shouldn't get a value-change event when the controls value doesn't change 18:13:02 For components, could we have an element to express the desire to receive certain events such as MIP or value events? 18:13:22 Steven: When the value changes from 42 to 45 to .. and back to 42 you don't get an event 18:13:28 Erik: correct 18:14:09 wiecha: it should appear as a transaction between refreshes 18:15:05 ebruchez: if the control knows the old and new value, it is the best place to send the events 18:15:36 wiecha: it doesn't make a difference if the control or the control sends the events, the model can still do it 18:16:16 ebruchez: I think this shouldn't be specified by the spec (who sends the events) 18:17:23 ebruchez: it simplifies the learning process for form authors (for value-change, read/write, relevant, required,...) 18:18:42 ebruchez: explains how you could optimize when the bindings need to be updated 18:19:06 wiecha: it is a question if we want the model or the UI to do all the work 18:19:25 ebruchez: in our product it is something between the model and the UI 18:20:04 ebruchez: it knows the bindings and the UI controls 18:22:05 klotz: do we think that the UI events are meant for the form author, and not for the implementation 18:24:00 ebruchez: so far I don't know an implementation that uses the UI events for controlling the controls 18:25:18 klotz: in custom-controls you also maybe want events to keep them up-to-date but you probably don't want the same UI events that could be cancelled by the form author. 18:27:29 klotz: we should separately consider events that are used by form authors and events used by custom form controls 18:28:04 klotz: I think we don't have enough experience with the events used by custom form controls 18:28:21 klotz: does everybody agree? 18:28:28 ebruchez: I aggree 18:28:41 i agree with leigh 18:29:11 nick: also agree 18:29:13 (looks like the rest of the group silently agrees) 18:31:07 +q 18:31:20 ack u 18:32:28 unl: I also wants to be able to have model only processor 18:33:32 So how about this "Res: For XForms 1.2, we will specify UI events designed for author use, and will test for coverage and ease of use against use cases, and will separately consider the question of events for custom controls or model-only processors." 18:33:43 ebruchez: this is another new feature, we have xxforms-value change which is similar to insert and delete events 18:34:58 klotz: do we need to check if the proposals make events in custom events hard 18:35:28 ebruchez: that will be hard, because then we have to look into custom controls 18:36:27 wiecha: if we see a red flag we should take it into account 18:36:57 Steven: does it change anything for the ordering of the events 18:37:12 ebruchez: currently we don't say anything about order 18:37:13 So how about this "Res: For XForms 1.2, we will specify UI events designed for author use, and will test for coverage and ease of use against use cases, and will separately consider the question of events for custom controls or model-only processors, but will make good-faith efforts not to impede that direction in the future." 18:37:32 s/but/and/ 18:38:24 John_Boyer: it is also about the life-cycle of controls and controls in repeats 18:38:44 So how about this "Res: For XForms 1.2, we will specify UI events designed for form author use, and will test for coverage and ease of use against use cases, and will separately consider the question of events for custom controls or model-only processors, and will make good-faith efforts not to impede that direction in the future." 18:39:22 RESOLUTION: For XForms 1.2, we will specify UI events designed for form author use, and will test for coverage and ease of use against use cases, and will separately consider the question of events for custom controls or model-only processors, and will make good-faith efforts not to impede that direction in the future. 18:40:02 rrsagent, make minutes 18:40:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/03/24-forms-minutes.html Steven_ 18:40:27 Meeting Forms WG FtF Day 1 18:40:53 Present+Charlie, Steven, Nick, Leigh, Erik, Uli 18:41:26 rrsagent, make minutes 18:41:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/03/24-forms-minutes.html Steven_ 18:41:48 ebruchez: one distinction XForms has markup that specifies a control and at runtime we have instances of the controls (it becomes clearer in repeats, multiple runtime objects for one control in markup, even no runtime objects) 18:41:55 Meeting: Forms WG FtF Day 1 18:42:00 rrsagent, make minutes 18:42:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/03/24-forms-minutes.html Steven_ 18:43:41 ebruchez: If a control is created (runtime object), its value changes, MIPS changes, and then it can disappear, after it disappears no events can be send to the control nor can the user interact with the control 18:44:33 John_Boyer: we have text in the spec that you could style non-relevant controls 18:45:22 +q 18:45:30 John_Boyer: the controls can show what they last contained (and don't get events anymore) 18:46:00 wiecha: having an extra state in the life-cycle would be helpful 18:47:54 it isn't as easy as saying that a non-relevant control is simply not bound to a data node because an xf:input may only be non-relevant by virtue of being bound to a node whose relevant mip is false 18:48:33 wiecha: it looks like binding relevance to the lifetime of a control is a bit .... 18:49:50 unl: you want to keep state if a control becomes non-relevant 18:51:40 nick: you want not to keep state for non-relevant controls, so you don't have to keep all the non-relevant controls in memory 18:51:56 wiecha: same holds for non-selected cases in a switch 18:52:34