W3C Forms teleconference July 18, 2007

* Present

Steven Pemberton, W3C/CWI
Charlie Wiecha, IBM
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Lars Opperman, Sun
Mark Birbeck, x-port.net (IRC)
Mark Seaborne, PicoForms
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Rafael Benito, SATEC
Roger Perez, SATEC
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer, DreamLabs
Blake Jones, ViewPlus Technologies/DAISY

* Agenda


* Previous Minutes


* Coming calls

Summer Questionnaire: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/32219/xformssummer07/ Please fill in: Lars, Rogelio, Sebastian, Joern, Leigh
John Boyer: Leigh, are you away any more in July and August?
Leigh Klotz: I am done with vacation.

* Next FtF - Hosted by SATEC September 12 to 14, 2007

Attendance Questionnaire: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34637/ftfsept2007/

* XForms 1.0 Third Edition

John Boyer: I've got us past pub rules and link checks. I saw you had to do a lot of work Steven last time.
Steven Pemberton: Yes.

** Entrance Criteria:


John Boyer: Do we have the entrance criteria met?
Steven Pemberton: [reads] same as PR, shows implementation experience that supports the changes.
John Boyer: How do we do that?
Steven Pemberton: What are the changes?
John Boyer: 41 errata, some trivial and not implementation changes. Our implementation can demonstrate most of them. I'm particularly concerned about the version attribute.

** Version attribute in test suite


John Boyer: If you set xforms=1.0 then existing processors won't do it.
Steven Pemberton: So if this is a substantive change to 1.0 processors they should stop, that means we have to run test suites.
John Boyer: Is that true only of conformance level errata?
Steven Pemberton: Not for typos, as it doesn't affect any existing browsers.
John Boyer: How did we do this for 1.0 SE? We didn't have an updated implementation report.
Steven Pemberton: Did we have substantive changes?
John Boyer: We had at least one; but we had conformance as being schema changes.
Steven Pemberton: What was that change?
John Boyer: It was the addition of the instance attribute to submission.
Steven Pemberton: In that case we argued that it was left out by accident and we already had implementations doing it; we they just accepted our word for it without a test suite.
John Boyer: Here's the 1.0 TE in editor's draft format: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.0.ThirdEdition/index-all.html
Steven Pemberton: Let me see what I said then.
John Boyer: The three errata were E9 (id), and people already did that; E32F (switch inside repeat), the same.
Leigh Klotz: And there was a note in the spec asking for it anyway.
John Boyer: Then then was the version attribute. It's obvious that it can be done; there's no mystery. But we need an implementation or two to have actually done it.
John Boyer: Are there any who have done it? We're down Mark and Erik.
Leigh Klotz: Most implementations with 1.1 features now are 1.0 with some 1.1 features. What would you like to happen in them if version=1.1?
John Boyer: The spec says that if it is not 1.1 conformant then...
Leigh Klotz: But nobody is 1.1 conformant, or can be.

Steven Pemberton: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2005JulSep/0020.html PER request from Masayasu "There is a correction that affects conformance. Erratum E69a [3] adds "instance" to the list of attributes for "submission". The WG believes that without this correction, the intended use of instance replacement is typically not achievable in practice. We have coordinated with implementors on this issue, and actually this is what implementations already do. So this correction was added to align specification with implementations."

John Boyer: So what about Leigh's question? Since we're not at PR yet it can't be done.
Leigh Klotz: So version missing is already handled by 1.0; version=1.0 isn't but could be easily. But what do processors with 1.0 but some 1.1 features do with version=1.1?
John Boyer: How about we make it a recommendation for 1.0?
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: A should instead of a must. That would make it an informative addition.
John Boyer: It would be normative, but optional.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: How does it correlate with the test suite? If it's normative?
Steven Pemberton: I believe I heard that every feature should be exercised.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I thought that normative "should" still had to be tested for interoperability.
Steven Pemberton: Yes, two interoperable implementations for "should." But on the "may" level...
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Should we move this to the "should" level?
Steven Pemberton: No, we can just say "For future compatibility, we strong recommend that XForms 1.0 user agents recognize the version attribute and act on it."
John Boyer: That's a should.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Then we can say it's an informative paragraph.
Steven Pemberton: That's equivalent to a may because existing implementations will still be valid. We'd like it to be more than may. "We would really like you to do it."
John Boyer: We can put in an informative note saying we strong encourage it and say that
Steven Pemberton: Make it a "may" and then say in a note "This attribute will be added to future versions of XForms and we strongly encourage it"
John Boyer: Then I can remove that erratum from the status section, and he others are already implemented.

Resolution 2007-07-18.1: We change the version attribute erratum to may and include a note saying that it's for forward compatibility and implementors are encouraged to add it. We remove it from the list of changes that require test suite changes.

Action 2007-07-18.1: John Boyer to implement Resolution 2007-07-18.1 .

** Transition Meeting (team contact to arrange)


John Boyer: Do you need to be here? Can you request it before vacation?
Steven Pemberton: Yes, I can request it for the week I get back.

** Transition Request (chair to send)


John Boyer: Then I send the transition request.
Steven Pemberton: Masayasu did both last time.
Steven Pemberton: And then the dependencies, but it looks like I have to be there anyway.
John Boyer: The HTML WG has no dependency on XForms 1.0, just XForms 1.2. And perhaps the Schema WG chair because of the types.
Steven Pemberton: They don't have to be invited; they just have to be informed, and turn up if they find problems.
John Boyer: So 7 days prior, etc. Can you send the request out this week?
Steven Pemberton: Yes. We'll be waiting on Steve Bratt.
John Boyer: And the teleconference bridge.
Steven Pemberton: That's easy.
John Boyer: Do I send the transition request before you do that?
Steven Pemberton: Yes, then I can point to the request.

John Boyer: Segue to ... Is there anyone who objects to our seeking the transition to transition to PR?
Steven Pemberton: Does anybody object to taking XForms 1.0 Third Edition to PER?
Steven Pemberton: Next F2F?
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Group redirects to http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Group and the second item on the F2F gets you a 404.
John Boyer: I made a cut and paste typo. I added that link yesterday.
Steven Pemberton: The week of the tenth.
John Boyer: I just changed the 06 to 09 and didn't notice the directory change. I'll fix that.

John Boyer: We'd like to have a resolution to submit XForms 1.0 TE to PER. It's the same document that's been available for six months now except for the change in status of the version attribute. So I take that as resolved.

Resolution 2007-07-18.2: We'd submit XForms 1.0 TE to PER.

John Boyer: The Transition Request is time-consuming.

* XForms Conference at XML Conference

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Jul/0055.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Jul/0036.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Jul/0024.html

John Boyer: Michael Kay will be unable to be the keynote speaker due to a conflict.
John Boyer: Also time is short for proposals. We have Mark Seaborne, Charlie, and a third one. We could do eight 15-minute, six at 20, or six at 15 plus a 30 minute keynote. Can you make it?
Steven Pemberton: No, Monday the 4th, I can't make it. December 5th is like Christmas in Amsterdam.

* Add scripts to XForms input-mode script list... again


John Boyer: What is the diff with issue 106? Can we trash this one?
Steven Pemberton: I think we resolved this already. Didn't I make the change?

Resolution 2007-07-18.3: http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/Appendices?id=151;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 was a reply to 106 and Steven deleted it.

* Conclusion of email discussion on Issue 103 (submission verb vs. method)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Jul/0067.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Jul/0060.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Jul/0059.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Jul/0047.html http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/Submission?id=103;user=guest;statetype=4;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1

John Boyer: The terminology of verb became less enchanting when I looked around for some normative definition of verb. Eric posted a suggestion that we reconsider manipulating the method attribute of submission instead, which we had originally considered. The submission method says things like post or get or urlencoded-post, and was a bit of an abstraction. One of the problems that we had was that method also implies the serialization; with post, you get xml serialization. We were concerned at the time that if we used an arbitrary method, that it wasn't clear what serialization would be implied. During the course of this week, we realized that we've come to accept that an attribute can have a default based on the value of another attribute; so a serialization attribute on a submission defaulted to application/xml if the method=post, and for method=get defaulted to application/x-www-... and then for some other string, it would be application/xml. If we had a serialization attribute as well and get rid of the verb idea.
Leigh Klotz: There are two problems that will come up; the keywords we use carve out of the space but we don't have a name, and the second is that HTTP uses uppercase, and ours use lowercase, so something has to know to convert.
Steven Pemberton: So what about saying other methods are uppercase.
Leigh Klotz: We should have answers to these questions though.
John Boyer: If there were a use case other than HTTP then we would see we needed to solve the problem.
Steven Pemberton: I think we're probably OK. Maybe not. Our fixed values are defined only for a http, file, and mailto. Any other new value of method we don't define anyway.
John Boyer: There is a schema binding. The HTTP binding we define. The file binding doesn't use them all, such as post.
Leigh Klotz: A lot of user agents treat file: POST as PUT for debugging ease.
John Boyer: Fair enough. Anyway, the default is almost always application/xml. There are get and urlencoded-post that produce the application/x-www-form-urlencoded.
Steven Pemberton: They really are namespaced, but just according to the schema on the action url.
Leigh Klotz: What do we do with the prefixed names then? Do we pass them through?
John Boyer: Let's talk about that in a minute. If we do have a serialization attribute then we don't need a serialize attribute. We could have serialization="" MIME type.
Steven Pemberton: That sounds great. Erik had said he wanted to use the word NONE, but that's not a MIME type.
Leigh Klotz: On the whole I like it but we need to decide what to do about the prefixed methods.
Leigh Klotz: Wait, wasn't verb an XPath expression?
John Boyer: Yes, so we need a method child element.
Leigh Klotz: And also a serialization child element.
John Boyer: Yes. That sounds like all of a piece then.
John Boyer: Then I'll proceed to create a spec-ready version for us to look at and get Erik to look at it.

* Meeting Ends

* IRC Minutes