IRC log of forms on 2015-09-30
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:01:44 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #forms
- 13:01:44 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/30-forms-irc
- 13:01:46 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 13:01:47 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #forms
- 13:01:48 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be
- 13:01:48 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
- 13:01:49 [trackbot]
- Meeting: XForms Users Community Group Teleconference
- 13:01:49 [trackbot]
- Date: 30 September 2015
- 13:02:06 [Steven]
- Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2015Sep/0011
- 13:02:22 [Steven]
- Steven has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2015Sep/0011
- 13:02:35 [Steven]
- Chair: Steve
- 13:02:41 [Steven]
- s/Steve/Steven
- 13:05:04 [Steven]
- Present: Steven, Alain, Erik, Nick
- 13:07:59 [Steven]
- Topic: XForms day 5th Nov
- 13:07:59 [Steven]
- [No link]
- 13:08:37 [Steven]
- Steven: The event is coming on nicely, 4 varied speakers at present.
- 13:09:04 [Steven]
- Topic: Editing
- 13:09:04 [Steven]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2015Jul/0005.html
- 13:09:23 [Steven]
- Steven: No progress to report. You're still having trouble Erik?
- 13:09:33 [Steven]
- Erik: Yes, I've sent a message to Liam
- 13:11:22 [Steven]
- Topic: public-xformsusers
- 13:11:22 [Steven]
- [No link]
- 13:11:40 [Steven]
- Steven: Nothing to report. I think next week Mark will join us on the call.
- 13:11:48 [Steven]
- Topic: JSON-to-XML and CSV-to-XML mappings in XForms 2.0
- 13:11:48 [Steven]
- [No link]
- 13:12:22 [Steven]
- Steven: Not sure what to do about this.
- 13:12:43 [Steven]
- ... Let's research this week and talk about it next.
- 13:12:46 [Steven]
- Erik; Sure
- 13:12:54 [Steven]
- Topic: Comments on Delete action
- 13:12:54 [Steven]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2015Sep/0010.html
- 13:13:11 [Steven]
- "1. "The delete action is terminated with no effect if the delete context is
- 13:13:11 [Steven]
- the empty sequence."
- 13:13:11 [Steven]
- "
- 13:13:28 [Steven]
- Erik: I reread this section, and found some surprises for me.
- 13:13:37 [Steven]
- ... some are more important than others
- 13:14:26 [Steven]
- ... This is a change since XForms 1.1, the context attribute is now very general.
- 13:15:05 [Steven]
- ... (Delete actually uses it in a different way, but that's another topic)
- 13:15:32 [ebruchez]
- <delete
- 13:15:33 [ebruchez]
- context="()"
- 13:15:34 [ebruchez]
- ref="instance('my-instance')/bar"/>
- 13:18:11 [ebruchez]
- <delete context="foo" ref="bar"/>
- 13:18:14 [Steven]
- Steven: Step 2 already says there is no effect if the binding gives no nodes
- 13:18:34 [Steven]
- Erik: If foo is empty, then so is bar.
- 13:19:15 [Steven]
- Steven: Then let's delete the sentence from step 1
- 13:20:12 [Steven]
- Nick: This was for XPath 1
- 13:20:34 [Steven]
- Erik: I remember Michael Kaye saying something about this.
- 13:21:23 [Steven]
- ... in XForms 1 there may be no way of doing this, and that would be the reason for having this sentence.
- 13:22:06 [Steven]
- Steven: So the sentence is there to stop XForms 1 implementations from throwing an error
- 13:22:29 [Steven]
- s/XForms 1/XPath 1
- 13:22:32 [Steven]
- s/XForms 1/XPath 1
- 13:25:07 [Steven]
- Steven: Can we express it in a generic way so that it doesn't matter which version of XPath we use.
- 13:28:15 [Steven]
- Steven: Such as in step 2 "If the expression uses the context and the context is empty, then terminate with no effect".
- 13:28:59 [Steven]
- Erik: It would introduce an theoretical incompatibility.
- 13:29:36 [Steven]
- ... I am split. I am OK to leave this for now.
- 13:29:57 [Steven]
- 2. "The behavior of the delete action is undefined if the Sequence Binding
- 13:29:57 [Steven]
- node-sequence contains nodes from more than one instance"
- 13:30:13 [Steven]
- Erik: I don't know why this written this way.
- 13:30:33 [Steven]
- ... I don't see why it wouldn;t delete from both instances.
- 13:30:38 [Steven]
- s/;/'/
- 13:30:41 [ebruchez]
- <delete
- 13:30:42 [ebruchez]
- ref="instance('my-instance')/bar, instance('your-instance')/baz"/>
- 13:31:06 [Steven]
- Nick: Maybe XPath 1 again?
- 13:32:11 [Steven]
- Erik: YOu would be very unlikely to do this in XForms 1.1
- 13:32:20 [ebruchez]
- XPath 1.0: ref="instance('my-instance')/bar | instance('your-instance')/baz"/>
- 13:32:21 [Steven]
- s/YO/Yo/
- 13:33:36 [Steven]
- Steven: Is there any reason to exclude elements from more than one instance?
- 13:33:38 [Steven]
- [No]
- 13:33:46 [Steven]
- Steven: Let's remove this restriction then.
- 13:34:02 [Steven]
- 3. "Otherwise, the Sequence Binding is not expressed, so the Sequence
- 13:34:02 [Steven]
- Binding node-sequence is set equal to the delete context node with a
- 13:34:02 [Steven]
- position and size of 1."
- 13:34:37 [Steven]
- Erik: So there is no ref and bind, so we delete the context node. Why?
- 13:34:40 [ebruchez]
- <xf:delete/> or <xf:delete context="foo"/>
- 13:35:06 [Steven]
- Nick: The first one would work in a delete
- 13:35:10 [ebruchez]
- <xf:delete ref="."/>
- 13:35:29 [Steven]
- Steven: I agree it's better to be explicit
- 13:35:33 [ebruchez]
- <xf:delete iterate="foo"/>
- 13:35:44 [Steven]
- Nick: Or an iterate action
- 13:37:17 [Steven]
- Erik: Either remove this or provide examples.
- 13:38:23 [Steven]
- Steven: I propose we remove it.
- 13:39:09 [Steven]
- Erik: It's true it would be backwards incompatible.
- 13:40:20 [Steven]
- Steven: IS it generally true that no ref means ref="."?
- 13:40:29 [Steven]
- Erik: Not as far as I am aware.
- 13:40:50 [Steven]
- Steven: <repeat ref="foo"><output/></repeat>
- 13:41:18 [Steven]
- ... is not allowed AFAIK
- 13:44:51 [Steven]
- Nick: I would prefer that we kept it as is, and added an example
- 13:47:41 [Steven]
- Nick: Alain what does your implementation do?
- 13:47:46 [Steven]
- Alain: I'll check.
- 13:48:02 [Steven]
- Erik: I would argue for being more explicit.
- 13:48:21 [Steven]
- Steven: I support that, but I would never have written it without ref.
- 13:49:05 [Steven]
- Erik: We could deprecate it.
- 13:49:20 [Steven]
- Steven: That's a perfectly acceptable path.
- 13:49:26 [Steven]
- Nick: I think that's better.
- 13:49:39 [Steven]
- Erik: I support that.
- 13:49:45 [Steven]
- Alain: I think that's better.
- 13:50:00 [Steven]
- ACTION: Erik to deprecate <delete> without a node binding
- 13:50:00 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-2031 - Deprecate <delete> without a node binding [on Erik Bruchez - due 2015-10-07].
- 13:50:37 [Steven]
- ACTION: Erik to allow delete on multiple instances
- 13:50:37 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-2032 - Allow delete on multiple instances [on Erik Bruchez - due 2015-10-07].
- 13:50:50 [Steven]
- 4. cannot delete "namespace node"?
- 13:51:07 [Steven]
- Erik: I'm not sure about this one.
- 13:51:16 [Steven]
- ... not sure if we can solve it live.
- 13:51:24 [Steven]
- ... I think we support deleting them
- 13:52:55 [Steven]
- ... in fact we even have a use case.
- 13:53:35 [Steven]
- Nick: We use XPath model, not a DOM model
- 13:53:42 [ebruchez]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/#NamespaceNode
- 13:54:12 [Steven]
- Steven: Can I ask all implementations to check whjat would happen in this case?
- 13:54:25 [Steven]
- "5. We must add what to do if the sequence points to some atomic values. We
- 13:54:25 [Steven]
- should say that those are ignored just as readonly items are.
- 13:54:25 [Steven]
- "
- 13:54:32 [Steven]
- s/hj/h/
- 13:54:42 [Steven]
- Steven: Let's do the namespace nodes next week.
- 13:56:37 [Steven]
- Erik: It wasn't origianlly written with atomic values in mind. I think we should add a sentence clarifying.
- 13:56:48 [Steven]
- s/origianlly/originally/
- 13:57:12 [Steven]
- ACTION: Erik to add clarification about deleting atomic values
- 13:57:12 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-2033 - Add clarification about deleting atomic values [on Erik Bruchez - due 2015-10-07].
- 13:57:56 [Steven]
- [ADJOURN]
- 13:58:02 [Steven]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 13:58:02 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/30-forms-minutes.html Steven
- 15:32:29 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #forms
- 15:45:00 [ebruchez]
- ebruchez has joined #forms
- 16:09:48 [liam]
- Steven, still there?
- 19:53:27 [Steven]
- Now I am
- 19:53:46 [Steven]
- Liam
- 20:41:55 [liam]
- Steven, oops, and I wasn't, sorry
- 20:42:22 [liam]
- I'll try and make the call next week and talk/listen about where the wg/cg might go forward
- 20:44:39 [liam]
- possibly what's needed is a tightly-edited spec as a cg report, together with a test suite & some results, as that might let us make a wg quickly without the politics. Doing that might actually be more valuable than publishing a rec I suppose, in the end, but test results are a necessary step in any case
- 21:18:19 [Steven]
- Sure. Thanks.
- 21:23:02 [Steven]
- Oh, and Erik Bruchez can't log in to the wiki. Any chance of finding out what's up?
- 21:37:19 [liam]
- i''ve replied to his mail
- 21:37:31 [liam]
- i *think* he needs to use a different account out of the 4 he has
- 21:37:53 [liam]
- i can't have access to the WG wiki changed, only to the CG wiki