Erik Bruchez, Orbeon
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Lars Opperman, Sun
Mark Seaborne, PicoForms
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Uli Lisse, Dreamlabs
Blake Jones, ViewPlus Technologies/DAISY Consortium
John Boyer: It wasn't announced on teh W3C site but our PR got published today; the call for review should be going out shortly. It will be announced then. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/PER-xforms-20070725/ The review period is through August 31st? The AC reps will be asked to vote for it, so please remind them.
John Boyer: We ended up with seven proposals, and we have six slots. We are working on logistics for the keynote. Or we may run all seven and no keynote.
John Boyer: We need to answer
this.
Erik Bruchez: He's asking to re-use
what's in the Schema already. One thing we do is to load the Schema
as an instance.
Leigh Klotz: How do you get the labels
out of that?
Erik Bruchez: For example, US states,
where the labels and values are the same. Maybe annotations.
Leigh Klotz: I saw that Chiba's
schema2xforms project is looking for a new maintainer.
John Boyer: Can you handle it?
Erik Bruchez: Yes.
Leigh Klotz: Then I'll answer, or
Mark, and point out this other project, but it doesn't belong in
the main answer.
Action 2007-07-25.1: Erik Bruchez to answer http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Jul/0014.html
John Boyer: Erik said he'd agree
and Leigh said he wanted it removed, and I could live with it. Does
anybody object to removing it?
Lars Opperman: In Open Office we use
the binding as the only means to hook into the model; we use our
own controls and they don't have a ref attribute, just a binding.
If an application continued this way it would be nice if the
binding could stay with the universal notion, though there are
problems in other aspects, so we can't maintain that anyway so I
would be OK with that going away.
John Boyer: The way this particular
property has been defined, it's easy to get a similar way. You can
ask for local name of the other elements. Leigh, was your objection
about not being able to resolve it bind or ref?
Leigh Klotz: Yes, there's no way to
find out the value space.
John Boyer: Or even find out what the
bind was.
Leigh Klotz: Unless you load the form
itself as an instance ;-)
John Boyer: OK. So we remove it.
Resolution 2007-07-25.1: For http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Jul/0089.html, we remove binding property from xforms-insert and xforms-delete
Action 2007-07-25.2: John Boyer to remove binding property from xforms-insert and xforms-delete
John Boyer: I've put the results of
this in the editor's draft.
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html
John Boyer: I've done other edits to
the document; here is a new table in Section 11.1:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#submit
providing a copy of Chapter 3 table. This is to resolve one of
Steven's issues of Chapter 11. I realize we don't like to copy
stuff but it's useful to have it here. There are other errata
addressed here. We now link to NCName throughout the document. So
we lose an attribute by this change.
John Boyer: The second change support
is the serialization attribute, which turns out to be nice. There
is no MIME type for no content; we decided not to use "none" so we
used empty string.
Erik Bruchez: I understand the
rationale behind it; I wouldn't advocate "none" given that it's not
a MIME type. The empty string is a little funny, but "none" isn't
it.
John Boyer: I didn't find "none" all
that bad when I tried to imagine it being there, because it's not a
MIME type. It's not so bad...maybe we can give it some more
thought. For the specification at least, there is a bit of
parallelism with the empty string.
Lars Opperman: It's a bit funny
because some serialization go into the body (POST) and some go into
the URL, and there is no mediatype.
John Boyer: That's true; that's
already the case in XForms. It describes the fact that we serialize
the data but not where in the protocol we put the data.
Lars Opperman: Do we have a way of
using the serialization you would use in GET but putting it into an
entity?
John Boyer: Yes, the urlencoded-post
method keyword.
Lars Opperman: Sure.
John Boyer: Note also we've changed
method to verb. It's just spelled
differently. Note that the resource attribute
should be used in place of the action attribute. This
is due to a last-call comment from Steven, and we've gone with
resource. We are more proactively indicating that the action is
deprecated in favor of resource.
Leigh Klotz: Do we say what happens if
you have both?
John Boyer: Yes, the resource takes
precedence, and includes the resource element.
John Boyer: For method
I realized that it wasn't true that it was the
protocol but actually the 'protocol operation.'
verb has been deleted, and minor changes to
validate and relevant for the default
coming from serialization. And
serialization changes from a boolean to a string. This
is the major change. The default is based on the setting of
something else and the other section describes the defaults.
Leigh Klotz: Is there a default for
version, the next attribute?
John Boyer: It is optional. What
should the default be?
Erik Bruchez: This applies only to
application/xml. It seems it should be 1.0.
John Boyer: This is another last-call
comment from Steven about attributes. Someone ends up with the
action item to put these in. I'd be happy to put them in as long as
I know what to write.
Action 2007-07-25.3: John Boyer to put 1.0 as default for submission/@version.
John Boyer: Also indent. It sounds
like a boolean. False?
Leigh Klotz: Is that right?
John Boyer: What does XSLT do?
Leigh Klotz: Even if true it's not
guaranteed to do anything.
Erik Bruchez: I'm not sure I see a
default.
John Boyer: Anyone opposed to a
default of no? I think that's what implementations are doing?
Resolution 2007-07-25.2: We default submission/@indent to false.
Action 2007-07-25.4: John Boyer to put false as default for submission/@indent.
John Boyer: Encoding? UTF-8? So we should set the defaults in accordance with XSLT where they are parallel.
Action 2007-07-25.5: John Boyer to put UTF-8 as default for submission/encoding.
Leigh Klotz: Why do we still have
mediatype and serialization?
John Boyer: Mediatype controls the
header, but serialization is the serialization used.
Leigh Klotz: So mediatype could be
text/xml or application/xhml+xml.
John Boyer: right.
Leigh Klotz: Sounds like we need a
note.
John Boyer: I can do that.
Action 2007-07-25.6: John Boyer to write note in chapter 11 up front clarifying when to use mediatype and when to use serialization.
John Boyer: We now define in
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#submit-method
the concept "submission method." This section is changed: method
instead of verb, and the first sentence is a term definition.
Leigh Klotz: Is the "immediately
after" a result of schema 1.0 constraints about ordered and
unordered and optional?
John Boyer: I hadn't realized that was
a schema constraint. It asks for resource, method, and headers.
There is a last-call comment from Erik about this already so we'll
deal with it then.
John Boyer: Neither the method
attribute nor element is required by itself but you do have to
specify one of them. That sentence may have been omitted. We say
that for submission resource but not for method.
Action 2007-07-25.7: John Boyer to fix 11.7 to add that one of method element or attribute required.
John Boyer: Here is the submission method element: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#submit-options
John Boyer: In
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#submit-options
we cleaned it up and dealt with last-call comments by using the
linked submission method. See teh table with the new default
serialization. The new row is the one that has any other NCName as
application/xml and the submission method is as given; this is old
verb attribute.
John Boyer: That's the spec-ready
changes.
Erik Bruchez: I think it's great. I'm
glad to see verb disappear.
John Boyer: Does this look like the
way forward? Does anybody have any objection to using this in lieu
of the verb we used to have?
Resolution 2007-07-25.3: We accept the
verb changes provided by John.
Action 2007-07-25.8: John Boyer to implement
verb changes provided in editor's draft.
John Boyer: We'll address these as time allows.
John Boyer: We've told Steven here to be using resource in lieu of action. I talked to Steven and left some notes about why we can't use the resource attribute to provide an XPath expression; it's inconsistent with resource being xsd:anyURI as it is elsewhere, and he was satisfied with that. He included a few things in this issue; he wanted the allowable values for @method to be listed. I would argue that that's now done. My comment is that they were listed in chapter 3, so copying it to chapter 11 seemed to do the job there, and he indicated he was satisfied with that. And verb. There's one final issue, noting that the validate and serialize attributes they appear to be verbs, and relevant is a adjective. Submission has 20 attributes, and serialize turned into serialization. I don't think there's an expectation that these things have to be a particular part of speech. Does that seem fair enough as a response?
John Boyer: Steven indicated he was happy with these. Does anyone find the language to be a problem?
John Boyer: We'll have a meeting next week.