W3C Forms teleconference May 23, 2007

* Present

Mark Birbeck
Blake Jones, ViewPlus Technologies/DAISY
David Landwehr, PicoForms
Jan Kratky, IBM
Keith Wells, IBM
Joern Turner, DreamLabs
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
TV Raman, Google
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer, DreamLabs
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C (Chair)

* Agenda


* Administration

Jan Kratky: I'm leaving the WG and being replaced by Keith Wells.
Keith Wells: I hope to be a good contributor.
Jan Kratky: Keith has been working with me on proofs of concept, and the test suite. I'll be moving on to the work on the Rational products within IBM.

* Conference Report (XTech, WWW-2007, ...)

Steven Pemberton: Mark and I were at both; Raman was at WWW-2007. I've come away with a good feeling about the web direction. The compound document approach to the web seems to be breaking through. There was a lot of talk about XHTML2 and XForms that was very positive. I was told that my XForms 1.1 tutorial was well-attended. There was a panel of 8 with 45 minutes at XTech for the future of HTML. The BBC interviewed me and Mike Smith straight afterward. During that panel, Dave Raggett, who is of course a classic name in HTML, said that XHTML2 and XForms are really great, and "we" (Volantis) are delivering XHTML2 and XForms to mobile devices with no problem at all. Is Dave here? There was lots of discussion and demo of RDF-A; six talks mentioned it. The wonderful talk and demo by Joost. They're doing peer-to-peer television. It's in beta testing. It's a neat application. They talked about their architecture. Their architecture is compound documents, SVG, XBL, and CSS.
David Landwehr: [IRC] Allan Beaufour is working for Joost and it is based upon Mozilla
Steven Pemberton: It's in Mozilla and everything is done with SVG and widgets.
David Landwehr: [IRC] it is actually xul runner
Steven Pemberton: It's the post child for our approach. Plus the Joost people started talking about adding RDF-A to their website.
TV Raman: And the panel?
Steven Pemberton: It was the future of HTML. At 45 minutes, there wasn't much time to say very much. We had to introduce yourselves, and we were just supposed to say who we were. Two of the HTML5 people immediately said how they much they hated namespaces. So I said that perhaps that was the real problem, and the issue isn't markup languages but something else. Mark, anything else?
Mark Birbeck: From the floor, it seemed that people wanted clarity on what was happening. Bystanders seemed to be asking what was going on. The audience seemed to think that XML was a done deal and were confused by it all. It does make it clear the whole thing is a bit of a mess.
Steven Pemberton: There should be a transcript. I'll try to post it to those who were interested.

TV Raman: The HTML5 WG has silently checked in the draft and they are integrating the Web Forms 2.0 and HTML5 documents. They've concluded the discussions.

Steven Pemberton: I also went to a lightning talk by Anne von Kesteren. We've reduced the DOCTYPE to <DOCTYPE HTML&gt. Of course, in XHTML2 we got rid of the DOCTYPE. He also said they now have video and audio tags. It's not clear why you need a video tag.
TV Raman: It seems to be an Opera browser feature involving their codecs.

* Previous Minutes

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0058 IRC supplement: http://www.w3.org/2007/05/16-forms-minutes

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

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

Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Ulrich will join from DreamLabs instead of Joern or me.

* XForms Basic 1.0, 1.1

Where is PR? Test suite issues

Leigh Klotz: The issue is that some have found the text in the XForms 1.1 Basic Profile document "may" about XML Schema subset is ambiguous. We have agreement now, I think, that we need the test suite updated to set the XForms Basic test flag to true for the XML Schema tests that that XForms Basic should pass. Also, there are some minor issues about other tests such as xsi:nil.
Jan Kratky: We don't have an action item, though. We should give that to Keith.

Action 2007-05-23.1: Keith Wells to change XForms Basic test suite flag to true for XML Schema tests.

Steven Pemberton: When?
Jan Kratky: We can get it done before the F2F.
Nick van: [IRC] I marked Jan Kratky to provide support for XForms 1.0 Basic Profile test suite feature list. as closed today, so we need a new action item or reopen that one. In fact he already has 3, Jan's action items are transferred to Keith ;)

* Forms Joint Task Force with HTML WG

Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I think this should be an HCG issue. I did this in the HTML WG but nothing happened.
Steven Pemberton: What do I report to the HCG? You tried to set up the task force and failed?
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: The charter said that architectural consistency is required. They say it is architecturally consistent. Technically, it is the task of the task force to come to this conclusion.
Steven Pemberton: So you're requesting to me that I report to the HCG and ask for this task force to be formed?
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I'm saying that's our only option; we should decide as a group.

* Latest Action Item List:

Nick van: The list is up to date. I sent a new version an hour ago.

* Insert/Delete Related Issues

Steven Pemberton: I suggest we go straight to these issues.

* Remove unnecessary decision about where to insert nodes


Steven Pemberton: Is Erik around today? Let's skip these.

* Remarks about xf:insert in XForms 1.1

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0005.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0008.html

Steven Pemberton: Nick?
Nick van: I need to re-read this. I think you can never reach it point 2.b.
Steven Pemberton: Are we missing an OR? How did we get here?
David Landwehr: I think John wrote the text.
Nick van: Or Erik. I'm not sure.
David Landwehr: Nick, did you implement this function for 1.1?
Nick van: I started for Chiba but not yet.
David Landwehr: I found it was hard to understand. I'm curious if you think the complexity is high.
Nick van: It's a bit harder than the version in 1.0.
David Landwehr: And the ease of use for the author? We had actions at one point but it seemed easy to use. I'm curious.
Nick van: It is more powerful.
Steven Pemberton: It doesn't actually contradict itself. The same thing happens in two places.
Nick van: It does seem to be code you don't need, and why is it in the spec?
Steven Pemberton: I've got you.
Nick van: It's not a contradiction. Am I missing something?
Steven Pemberton: The good news is that it's not a contradiction and is just an editorial point.
Nick van: All of my questions are like this, not contradictions.
Steven Pemberton: Then I'll consider these comments and we don't have to discuss them and we can ask whoever wrote this text to clear it up? Anybody object to that resolution of these issues?
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] fine

Resolution 2007-05-23.1: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0005.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0005.html are editorial and should be addressed by John Boyer and Erik.

Steven Pemberton: Was I hearing a suggestion from you that it was simplified?
David Landwehr: I have thought this the whole time and I have my doubts. I haven't sent a comment. It's more a question than a comment.
Steven Pemberton: If it's an implementation problem then that will show up during CR.
David Landwehr: The question is can people really use it?
Steven Pemberton: We should write some forms to see if it solves real problems.
David Landwehr: They solve real problems, but we know how it works. Will someone from the outside be able to?
Mark Birbeck: I agree with you. Maybe I'm just dim, but I have to consult the spec or the tutorial and scroll down to the bit I want to do and cut and paste the code, because I can never remember how to get a template from one instance to another. There's too many rules.
Steven Pemberton: Mark, would that be a last-call comment?
Mark Birbeck: OK. I'm not sure what a simpler approach would be other than duplicate and destroy, and making insert and delete be operators on nodesets.
David Landwehr: The last call comment should just say that insert and delete are too complicated to use; you don't need a solution.
Steven Pemberton: If you, Mark, have to keep going back to the spec, then it seems to me that the solution has failed we have to simplify it.
David Landwehr: I can write it as well.
Mark Birbeck: It's hard, especially with attributes.
Steven Pemberton: Thank you both.
Leigh Klotz: Does the resolution still stand?
Steven Pemberton: Yes, as we still have the text, and have agreed the text needs work. It may be made moot in the future, but not now.

Steven Pemberton: Should we handle issues from Erik if he isn't here?
Nick van: [IRC] Let's handle others first.

* Value changes upon instance replacement


Steven Pemberton: No value-changed is fired to the controls after the instance is replaced.
Leigh Klotz: Joern is this is the chiba-state-changed issue?
Joern Turner: Yes.
Leigh Klotz: I agree, then. If my control listens for xforms-value-changed it gets it when a setvalue or user changes, but not when the computation is moved offbox and a replace instance happens.
Nick van: You don't get one when the instance is initially loaded.
Joern Turner: ...
Steven Pemberton: So you would like the xforms-value-changed to happen even when the instance is loaded initially?
Nick van: We have a custom event when any MIP changes including value.
Steven Pemberton: I think the instance replace case is where this doesn't happen. Mark?
Mark Birbeck: I'm not sure whether it doesn't change or whether we just happened to have done it. We do fire it.
Nick van: And what about the other MIPs?
Mark Birbeck: Yes, we do.
Leigh Klotz: It's a problem when it doesn't work.
Mark Birbeck: I think that it should just happen with the r* events, refresh.
David Landwehr: We fire the events as well.
Mark Birbeck: I thought submission said to do a rebuild on the model.
Steven Pemberton: My feeling from the discussion is that we agree that the events should happen on initial instance and instance replace. Does anybody disagree?
Leigh Klotz: Which events?
Steven Pemberton: xforms-value-changed but also xforms-invalid and the other related events. Does anybody think those events shouldn't happen?
David Landwehr: It could be very expensive on some devices to fire the events on all controls during initialization. You can get refresh.
Mark Birbeck: You get refresh anyway. We say to fire the events after done. The event firing is all in the refresh phase.

David Landwehr: If that's what makes sense for other people then I can live with it.
Nick van: I don't think it's clear. Erik was quite convinced that you can't send the events if you follow the spec, but Orbeon does send the events.

Steven Pemberton: We should see whether the spec requires it and what to do if we it does not. Joern, would you try to resolve this?

Action 2007-05-23.2: Joern Turner to investigate 'Value changes upon instance replacement' http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007May/0011.html including other MIP change events and report back to group.

* Meeting Ends

* IRC Minutes