Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer, DreamLabs (chair)
Erik Bruchez, Orbeon
John Boyer IBM (IRC Only)
Joern Turner, Dreamlabs
Charlie Wiecha, IBM
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Rafael Benito, SATEC
Roger Perez, SATEC
Susan Borgrink, Progeny
Ulrich von Lissé, DreamLabs
Charlie Wiecha: We are waiting for
the language for the interest groups from the patent policy group.
Ian Jacobs had received some draft language but it would be another
couple of weeks. We think it will happen.
Joern Turner: Ulrich is interested in
Backplane as well.
Charlie Wiecha: I'll ping Ian
again.
Action 2007-05-16.1: Charlie Wiecha to contact Ian Jacobs and get status on Backplane interest group patent policy.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: This
seems like just an oversight.
Charlie Wiecha: It may be that we
discussed this in Raleigh and made an explicit decision.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I didn't
check the minutes.
Charlie Wiecha: I remember some
discussion about this being a more minimal approach.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: OK, let's
refresh that. We should revisit this issue, possibly at the
F2F.
Charlie Wiecha: Let's dig into
it
Nick van:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2005/09/f2f/2005Sept08#topic17
Charlie Wiecha: It does look like we
decided to do the whole thing.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Yes,
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2005/09/f2f/2005Sept08#topic17
Nick van: I think we talked about it a
bit later and decided to drop iterate because there were some
problems with deleted items in the nodeset but I can't recall when
we talked about it.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: This is an
interesting question; this sounds like it might become an erratum
if we don't.
Leigh Klotz: John has some questions
on IRC.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] John,
do you think we should include it today for 1.1?
John Boyer: [IRC] No
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] John,
so future stuff?
John Boyer: [IRC] Yes. It creates a
nodeset that has to persist during run of actions that can include
delete. This is where the problem comes in, and nobody wanted to
write the spec for it, so it got dumped into 1.2. We just didn't
put it in future features.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC]
OK.
Action 2007-05-16.2: John Boyer to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007May/0007.html that it is a future feature and why it was dropped.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: This
reminds me of some very early requirements from Larry
Masinter.
Leigh Klotz: Wouldn't you need some
extensions already to even make use of it?
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: How generic
could this be? You could locally browse, specify filesystem..
Leigh Klotz: What can you do with it?
You need an extension to do this anyway. We'd need more use
cases.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Can you
respond, keep the ball rolling?
Action 2007-05-16.3: Leigh Klotz to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007May/0003.html with questions about how generic the use case is, request for more, point out that it requires an extension.
Leigh Klotz: I thought we already
decided at the F2F that DOMActivate would set the value.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I will pick
someone from the action item list. Erik, would you take on
this submit-on-enter issue?
Action 2007-05-16.4: Erik to read and understand http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Feb/0084.html , contact Aaron Reed and Mark Birbeck, and report back to group.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Yes, I
think XML Events are quite heavy. Personally I agree.
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] This is just a
syntactic suggestion.
Leigh Klotz: This is for the XML
Events people, right?
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: We could
ask them to do it. That's the XHTML2 WG?
Nick van: [IRC] It's probably
something to suggest to whomever is in charge of XML Events. Shane
and MarkB.
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] I can send the
suggest to whomever is in charge.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Does
anybody object to this?
Erik Bruchez: We can't just change XML
events.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: We can ask
if they will incorporate it in the next version or in an
erratum.
Erik Bruchez: OK. Does anybody
object?
Charlie Wiecha: I'd like to raise the
abstraction level and post the requirement to re-use the handler.
There may be other ways to do it, and let them discuss us.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: That's a
good idea.
Charlie Wiecha: The space-separated
list of events doesn't allow you to control bubble and
capture.
Nick van: Can't you already do this in
XML Events with multiple listeners and one handler? I find
<listener event="event-type-1" handler="#handler"/>
<listener event="event-type-2" handler="#handler"/>
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Yes. I
think we should still Erik to approach Shane McCarron and Mark
Birbeck.
Action 2007-05-16.5: Erik Bruchez to suggest requirement to share handlers via lighterweight syntax than ev:listener to Shane McCarron and Mark Birbeck.
Action 2007-05-16.6: Leigh Klotz to read and report back on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0057.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0057.html
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: This is
a Jan issue. Didn't we kick mustUnderstand altogether?
Charlie Wiecha: I think so.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I think we
addressed this already. The question is where is extension
permitted? Is it clear by now? Anybody?
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I wonder if we have addressed this? Did "up to March 14" mean already covered? This is another Jan issue.
Leigh Klotz: I forwarded this from
an email discussion from Michael Kaye and it got dropped.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: So do we
process it now?
Leigh Klotz: It's a bit late.
John Boyer: [IRC] It came as a
last-call issue.
Leigh Klotz: So let's discuss it at
the F2F and have Erik Bruchez present his solution.
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] Unfortunately I
won't be at the F2F.
Leigh Klotz: Can you call in for
that?
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] Yup
Resolution 2007-05-16.1: We discuss http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2006Dec/0062.html at the F2F and encourage Erik Bruchez to call in.
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] the term
"acceptable" is just not working here in the first place I
think
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I agree.
What's the rationale for "acceptable?" Maybe like we restricted
repeat. Does anybody have strong feelings?
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] I have also
submitted more comments regarding bindings in another email I think
that may entail a rework of the whole area
John Boyer: [IRC] The section starts
"Dynamic Dependencies" then says some are not acceptable, then it
goes on to say that in particular there are problems with model
binding expressions
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] I mean the whole
section about bindings
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] Erik,
what do you suggest?
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] Well, following
recent discussions on bindings with John in public-forms, I think
we need to do some work there
John Boyer: It's certainly true that
7.4 eval context needed a full rewrite, so some surgery on 7.5 is
conceivable.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] what
do u suggest, striking acceptable and/or reworking the
sections?
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] the thing is, any
expression that returns a node-set is acceptable
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Sure.
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] it's just some are
dynamic bindings, some are not
John Boyer: [IRC] In the particular
case of the word acceptable it didn't grab me as being
difficult to understand, so I haven't gone after a rewrite.
John Boyer: [IRC] By acceptable we
mean that they won't work correctly
Erik Bruchez: [IRC]but I don't
understand it ;-)
Erik Bruchez: [IRC]not by the standard
meaning of "acceptable"
John Boyer: [IRC] It's unacceptable
that things don't work as you would expect
Erik Bruchez: [IRC]then dynamic
bindings are prohibited?
John Boyer: [IRC] In a perfect union
of xpath and xforms, ignoring algorithmic complexities
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] either way we need
a rewrite and to use a different term
John Boyer: [IRC] they would work
properly, but they don't.
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] we could use a
different word than acceptable as long as someone
proposes one
John Boyer: [IRC] that issue alone
didn't inspire me to go off and rewrite the section though
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] more than the
word, we need to actually explain what we mean
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: OK, moving
on to next agenda item.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Uli and
Joern, do you have any insight? Erik?
Ulrich von: In Chiba, copy isn't
implemented yet.
John Boyer: [IRC] Ah yes, the
inability to create dependencies problem...
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: We take the
first one.
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] We take the first
one too.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: That
matches with what David is suggesting.
Ulrich von: I think so.
Nick van: [IRC] didn't we talk
about it at Palo Alto?
John Boyer: [IRC] we do too.
John Boyer: [IRC] yes we did
Nick van: [IRC] can't find the
minutes
John Boyer: [IRC] it was acrimonious
as I recall
Nick van: [IRC] does anybody have a
link to the minutes of Palo Alto?
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] John,
all take the first one, I think we can (re-)agree on this
Nick van: [IRC] s/have a link/has a
link/
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] all
means all implementations on the call today
John Boyer: [IRC] that's because you
don't have Mark and Raman there
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] David
is asking:
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] I
believe the specification should state that for closed selections
the first matching item must be the one selected
Erik Bruchez: here is the link to my
message to www-forms-editor regarding section 7
Erik Bruchez:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007May/0006.html
John Boyer: [IRC] They argued strongly
that a "select1" should select multiple items if they match the
value
John Boyer: [IRC] because you're
selecting one value. I thought it should select1 item
Nick van: [IRC] I want to read the
minutes first
John Boyer: [IRC] but there are just
enough wrong words in the spec that it can be read either way
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] ah, visually
select multiple
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: OK, so
we'll leave this open.
Leigh Klotz: [IRC]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2007JanMar/0169.html