W3C Forms teleconference May 9, 2007

* Present

John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Blake Jones, Daisy Consortium/ViewPlus Technologies
Charlie Wiecha, IBM
Jan Kratky, IBM
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Rafael Benito, SATEC
Roger Perez, SATEC
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer, DreamLabs
Susan Borgrink, Progeny
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers>
Ulrich Nicolas Lissé, DreamLabs

* Agenda


* Previous minutes:


* Coming calls

May 16 Sebastian to chair telecon May 23 Steven to chair telecon

John Boyer: I can't produce the agenda for next week and have talked to Sebastian.

* Next FtF - Hosted by IBM June 13 to 15, 2007

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0022.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0013.html

John Boyer: Please register. Remind Steven to update the page; it still says "Joint HTML Forms Group" and fix the "Forms group"

Action 2007-05-9.1: Steven Pemberton (in absentia) to please update pages http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0022.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0022.html

Susan Borgrink: Do we have updates on the member page?
John Boyer: We're transitioning away from it to the public page. I need to check with Steven before we remove it.

* XForms 1.0 Third Edition

John Boyer: The status reflects the new patent policy, and I made a change to the QName-but-not-NCName.
Ulrich Nicolas: [joins]

* XForms Transitional


John Boyer: Are there people who would would want to work with this closely?
Charlie Wiecha: I was hoping Mr. Raggett would be leading that.
John Boyer: He is a chair of another group now, but remains involved and is still presenting on the topic.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: It may not be time yet. It's required in the charter, so it must happen, though.
John Boyer: Dan Connolly has been active; there has been a proposal to use HTML5/WHATWG work products as the "basis for review." By this, they mean checked into CVS and undergoes changes to make recommendation track; in other words, it is WF2 unless otherwise argued in their group. The questionnaire closed and there hasn't been much objection. The most vocal folks in the group argue that they don't want any editorial involvement from the Forms WG; their idea of architectural consistency doesn't include alignment of tagsets, just "they can repeat, we can repeat." So there's no advantage to standardization.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: We have to wait and see.
Charlie Wiecha: Should we continue to evolve XForms Transitional in the meantime?
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I think Dave should move forward with it. We said the group should go forward with XForms 1.1 though, as Raman pointed out.
John Boyer: We do need someone to participate at the spec level.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Yes, we should do it. But the options are at the moment limited?

* Latest Action Item List:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0026.html Action item rotation list (when no volunteers): Blake, Charlie, Dave, David, Erik, Jan, Joern, John, Kenneth, Lars, Leigh, MarkB, Nick, Rafael, Raman, Rogelio, Sebastian, Steven, Susan, Ulrich?

John Boyer: Please note the action item rotation list, for assigning action items where it appears nobody is the best qualified. It's like minutes; if you really can't do it, please let us know. Does that really scare anybody?
Charlie Wiecha: No more than anything else...
John Boyer: Blake?
Blake Jones: OK.

* Submission pruning empty nodes on url-encoded submissions


Leigh Klotz: I sent a summary on the list again. I think the "finding leaf nodes" and "eliminating complex content" got conflated, with the result that empty leaf nodes don't get submitted.
John Boyer: Anybody opposed to changing to submit empty leaf nodes?

Resolution 2007-05-9.1: Empty leaf nodes do get submitted.

Action 2007-05-9.2: Blake Jones (assisted by Leigh Klotz) to write update eliminate pruning of empty leaf nodes on url-encoded submissions.

* Conclusion to Readonly on trigger etc.


John Boyer: It seemed like there might be an informative note. The additional trouble is related to the fact that we don't have a good definition of form control. It does need to end up becoming an action item to propose additional text. Any volunteers? Although our model says that events for MIPs flow to form controls that express UI bindings, that doesn't mean that those MIP states do things to the controls; readonly on trigger, in particular.

Action 2007-05-9.3: Charlie Wiecha to produce short note for trigger about readonly.

Charlie Wiecha: It may not be only trigger.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: We have a problem in Chiba that if a control changes binding, when it changes back, you may not know. If you have a transcoder and change the control changes to a date picker, then if you want to change it back, you may not have the information any more. I'd like to ask Joern about this.
Charlie Wiecha: That sounds a little different than what I was talking about; but I'll bounce off you what I propose to write.
Leigh Klotz: Is this related to the problem of letting the user know that a submit button isn't ready to be pushed again yet until the xforms-submit-done is done?
Charlie Wiecha: I don't think so; that's more than trigger.
John Boyer: Yes, let's just put that on the future features.

* Definition of form control needs work (in Readonly on trigger, etc.)


John Boyer: Some places a form control is atomic, some places repeat, some places group and switch. Repeat doesn't have a single-node binding so the MIPs might apply to the items, not the repeat itself. There is a general problem that needs to be looked at in detail, perhaps at a F2F. We decided to leave it as is about six months ago, but we can revisit that.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: The form control itself, the markup, is a like a macro. You can programmatically change the behavior of the form control from the model. In a transcoder, you need to keep track of two info sets, the actual markup and the programmatic space in the model. The question is how you deal with that superposition of information, using a hashtable or a shadow tree.
John Boyer: I thought I had some similar issues; that's not the same as "form control is not rigorously defined." I've seen where people are trying to change things on the client with transcoders on the server, and we have had to detect those programming efforts and detect them and send them back to the server.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Joern thinks this is a language issue, not just an implementation issue.
Leigh Klotz: Sebastian, I'd like to talk to you about it as well.
Charlie Wiecha: This sounds like a Mark Birbeck-kind of issue.
John Boyer: This sounds like an issue for the next F2F.

* Automating the test suite


John Boyer: I'd like to bring up the XForms Basic test suite issues here.
Jan Kratky: Leigh went through the test suite in the context of XForms Basic and we have a hand column on the chapter driver pages for the test suite that tells you whether success is required for XForms Basic. After going through that list, Leigh sent me some that were marked as not applicable. It led us down the path that, from our point of view, we'd like to make sure that we're in sync with the spec. Leigh and I came to some agreement that the spec language is vague on some of the points, particularly around Schema processing.
Jan Kratky: It's the text of the second bullet http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms-basic/#id2606183
Jan Kratky: This could be interpreted as saying you don't support URI in Schema attributes or the Schema element. So one possible interpretation is that Schema processing isn't required. The other interpretation is that we are creating a profile of XML Schema.
Leigh Klotz: [summarizes how we got here]. Also, the big question is what PicoForms does, because if it doesn't implement the Schema profile, then we can't go forward to PR with that.
Jan Kratky: Yes. The next issue is the xsi:nillable property; is it defined on instance elements at all? And it doesn't say that the Schema processor should/shouldn't fail if there is a full Schema present.
Leigh Klotz: Right, it shouldn't fail.
John Boyer: Right, several questions for David and Kenneth about their implementation. My own recollection is that it would read the schema but only look for simpleType definitions, but at this point, it's up to David and Kenneth to tell us what they have. If we have to modify the wording, we may have to go back to working draft. I wasn't aware that nillable was a structural thing.
Jan Kratky: It's not on a type, it's on a declaration.
John Boyer: We're at the top of the hour here. We didn't get around to optimizing the test suite. Is there some willingness to do more nature on this?
Jan Kratky: What Mark said is common sense. I'll be uploading a draft of the 1.1 test suite with some improvements in this area. Something out of the box, hooked into Selenium or something else, would be great. I'm not sure I can sign up for that.

* IRC Minutes


* Meeting Ends