XForms teleconference October 10, 2007

* Present

Blake Jones, Daisy/ViewPlus
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Lars Opperman, Sun
Uli Lissé, DreamLabs
Joern Turner, DreamLabs
Mark Birbeck, x-port.net
Rafael Benito, SATEC
Roger Peréz, SATEC
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer, DreamLabs
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
Keith Wells, IBM
Charlie Wiecha, IBM
Erik Bruchez, Orbeon (:45)

* Agenda


* Previous minutes:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Oct/0015.html IRC supplement: http://www.w3.org/2007/10/03-forms-minutes.html

* XForms 1.0 TE PER

John Boyer: The review period ended August 31; we should be pushing it forward.
Steven Pemberton: Let me look at the replies.
John Boyer: The replies were still coming in on XForms 1.1, nothing on the errata for 1.0. The readonly issue got mentioned; I think it was hairy enough to resolve for 1.1 (whether readonly applies to actions or not). If we ever want to backport that solution to 1.0, it's not 1.0 TE. There was no feedback on any of the errata, which I understand is what we should be looking for for an edited recommendation.
Steven Pemberton: Sure. I'll check.

Action 2007-10-10.1: Steven Pemberton to push XForms 1.0 TE PER through to REC.

John Boyer: Do I need to regenerate the spec and do pub rules?
Steven Pemberton: It just needs a different status.
John Boyer: Usually I do that with specxml. Do we have to get on the director's calendar to advance to recommendation?
Steven Pemberton: Let me check the steps now...I don't see any reason for a meeting. I'll send a message.

Action 2007-10-10.2: John Boyer to generate new status section, REC, date, and empty errata page, pubrules check for XForms 1.0 TE PR.

John Boyer: Do we need a resolution from the group?
Steven Pemberton: I don't think so; we proposed it as an edited recommendation. After that's there's the AC vote and there's nothing more for the group to do.

* XForms 1.1

John Boyer: We're still working on last-call issues; there are other things to be done. We need a report of the last-call issues and their disposition. Does Shane's system produce that?
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [irc] yes
Steven Pemberton: Yes, it's automatically generated in the W3C format.
Nick van: [irc] we prob. need to update the user state
John Boyer: What do we do if there is no response?
Steven Pemberton: There's a rule for that: silence is consent.
John Boyer: Someone is updated the last-call system with the newer emails that were part of the thread around IRIs. Does anyone know who is doing that?
Steven Pemberton: By email.
John Boyer: It's because of reply all?
Steven Pemberton: That may be it. The xforms-issues mailing address goes to incoming unless it has an issue number in the subject, in which case it gets appended to the issue.
John Boyer: So the email responses aren't containing those issue numbers. So I can trash them as already resolved (they're happy with xsd:anyURI).

* XForms Conference at XML Conference


Leigh Klotz: I entered titles, descriptions, etc. I made up bios and pictures for people who didn't send them.
Mark Birbeck: I have a speaker profile. I tried to merge it.
Leigh Klotz: OK, please send me the link and I'll try to do it or we can let Dave Megginson know and he can do it.

* Completion of XForms 1.1 schema updates


John Boyer: Charlie says it's in progress.

* Completion of insert/delete examples.


Uli Lissé: I made progress but am not finished.
John Boyer: Estimated time?
Uli Lissé: I hope tonight.
John Boyer: Thank you. Do you like the formatting/
Uli Lissé: Yes, it's much better than before.

* Completion of submission examples


John Boyer: Steven, you did some submission examples.
Steven Pemberton: Yes, I sent then.
John Boyer: The action attributes should go to resource.
Steven Pemberton: That's a good discussion, but it's editorial.
John Boyer: As long as that's OK. It's deprecated for 1.1
Steven Pemberton: I thought we had an outstanding issue for that?
John Boyer: No, that's for if.
Steven Pemberton: OK.
John Boyer: And there are no suggestions about where to put these.
Steven Pemberton: I thought that was for a last-call comment
John Boyer: Yes, "chapter 11 is really long and has no examples."
Steven Pemberton: Yes, at the beginning.
John Boyer: Can you do the specXML?
Steven Pemberton: ...
Leigh Klotz: I'll do it.
John Boyer: Do you recall having an example for submit-done?
Steven Pemberton: I haven't done anything on catching events; just the submission element.
John Boyer: Maybe Erik's feedback, linked in the agenda, says SOAP example as well. I can probably pull one of those together. It might have a submit-done handler in it. So you did intro-type examples.
Steven Pemberton: Yes, just to illustrate the section. It gives examples of the major features.
John Boyer: I recall a file as well.
Steven Pemberton: Yes, instance, etc.
John Boyer: So the token's over to Leigh now.

Action 2007-10-10.3: Leigh Klotz to update Steven Pemberton's submission examples and convert them to spec xml.

* Read Access from WAF


Leigh Klotz: I think we should let them know we're interested in this and ask for XForms to be included. It's useful for us, and it's sufficiently general that we ought t.
John Boyer: What's the timeframe? Can we do this at a F2F?
Leigh Klotz: There's no timeframe listed; it's a WD, but we should send them a note.
Lars Opperman: Doesn't this apply to HTML forms as well.
Leigh Klotz: ...
John Boyer: So we should send a note and I should put it on the agenda. Leigh, can you send the note?
Leigh Klotz: Sure.

Action 2007-10-10.4: Leigh Klotz to send note about http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Oct/0002.html to appropriate WG.

Action 2007-10-10.5: John Boyer to add one hour to F2F agenda to discuss http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Oct/0002.html

* Deleting or replacing readonly nodes


John Boyer: I called this "readonly as firewall." Nick responded with a subtlety. I assumed that if a node existed and was readonly, you couldn't delete it or replace it; whereas if you're going to insert it, you don't know. Nick is saying we should do the same parent check on delete and replace.
Leigh Klotz: This is a shift from leaf nodes with inheritance to complex nodes.
John Boyer: That's the big issue; we already have that.
Leigh Klotz: I guess with select we change complex nodes.
Nick van: If the parent isn't readonly you can change the parent.
John Boyer: So you're saying readonly is about the content of the node.
Nick van: The node itself would be deleted from the parent. It becomes a subtree without a parent, but you don't change the node itself.
John Boyer: If a node is readonly but its parent isn't readonly, you want to be able to delete it or replace it.
Nick van: That's what I think; if everybody else thinks otherwise it's ok. In my view, you don't change the node if you delete it.
John Boyer: Right. So, if a parent is readonly, it doesn't matter if it's an element or an attribute, you couldn't delete it.
Nick van: Yes.
John Boyer: So it's about the content and attribute of a node, but not the node itself.
Nick van: You do have to change the parent pointer, but conceptually, yes.
John Boyer: So we just need to pick a way. Is there anyone who's unclear about the choice?
Leigh Klotz: Do you have a reason for picking the route you did?
John Boyer: For me, the node is readonly. relevant doesn't apply to the content and attributes of a node. Making it disappear seems like a change to me. I hadn't seen there was another way to look at it until Nick brought it up.
John Boyer: <bind nodeset="x" readonly="true()"/> Can you delete or replace x?
Nick van: if parent of x is not readonly.
John Boyer: Or in Nick's view, suppose x contains element y, then you could delete x but not y.
John Boyer: in my case, you can't delete x, nor y (because y is readonly if its parent is readonly)
Mark Birbeck: I've lost track of the current state. If x has an attribute of y is it also readonly? Are we binding to the node x or the first child text node?
John Boyer: readonly binds to node itself. We've uniformly stepped away from the first child text node.
Mark Birbeck: Not on controls though.
John Boyer: On controls. It binds to the whole content of that node.
Mark Birbeck: To the text node?
John Boyer: The binding of x causes the entire content of x to be replaced.
Mark Birbeck: But not the attributes
John Boyer: So you have a new single text node containing the modified value.
Mark Birbeck: So I should have said content.
Erik Bruchez: [joins]
Mark Birbeck: ...attributes... I have kind of missed it then.
John Boyer: All the MIPs apply to the nodes; when you bind relevant, it makes the entire node relevant. Same for readonly. When a form control binds to a node, it gets its readonly-ness from x, not from children. When a form control writes to a data model, it does it in a manner consistent with setvalue. So it replaces the content of x with the value. The reading or writing of the content is specific to the value of the node; for MIPs and events, it's the nodes themselves.
Mark Birbeck: That's OK. There've been so many discussions I've lost track.
John Boyer: OK. So when you say <bind nodeset="x" readonly="true()"/> any nodes that have x as an ancestor become readonly because of the inheritance rules for readonly. So all attributes and nodes within its content.
Leigh Klotz: So how do you make an element be readonly but not an attribute.
John Boyer: nodeset=x/*.
Mark Birbeck: @*
Leigh Klotz: I want @* false.
Roger Peréz: [irc] good question Leigh.
John Boyer: <nodeset="x/node()" readonly="true()"> The a
John Boyer: Or just x/* for the elements.
Leigh Klotz: so x/* wouldn't set the text to be readonly.
John Boyer: actually, use node() if you want more than elements.
Nick van: So the text wouldn't be readonly.
John Boyer: I see, for a leaf node, you want to make the content readonly but not the attributes. I don't think we have a way of doing it.
Leigh Klotz: Can you do it with text?
John Boyer: Then you don't get the readonly indicator on the form control.
Mark Birbeck: Or you could use a bind statement.
John Boyer: <input ref="x" > but <bind nodeset="x/text()" readonly="true()"> can you replace the text? Because replacing the text isn't a change to the node.
Nick van: I think you can change it by the same reason that it is allowed to delete a readonly node if the parent is not readonly.
John Boyer: To some extent that depends on how you implement setvalue; if it changes the string of a text node, then a form control could not modify that text, but if you replace the text node.
Leigh Klotz: Don't do that.
John Boyer: The only way to implement that in the xpath data model is to destroy the text node if there is empty text.
Nick van: A PI is also replaced so you can't just do a string replace if there are children and then append the new text.
John Boyer: So that fixes that problem entirely.
Nick van: But if we go for this, then I think it contradicts the way we now specify delete of nodes, because we say you can't delete a node if the parent is readwrite.
Leigh Klotz: If a parent is readwrite you can't delete its children?
Nick van: Yes, I think it's a typo. But John said it was written on purpose like that.
John Boyer: Delete says you cannot delete a node if it is readonly but its parent is readwrite.
Nick van: If you can't delete readonly children then you can't delete readonly children so you can't delete them all.
Mark Birbeck: You must be able to. Every child is going to have a parent that is readwrite, somewhere.
John Boyer: You could make the root readonly.
Mark Birbeck: ...
Charlie Wiecha: The container model. It makes sense to allow deletion of readonly nodes if the parent is readwrite.
John Boyer: [irc] Do we want to be able to delete a readonly child of a readwrite parent?
Mark Birbeck: How do you protect a node from being readonly then? The parent is readwrite.
John Boyer: Even if the grandparent is readonly you can't delete the node.
Nick van: So you couldn't delete a node if its children.
Mark Birbeck: So you inherit it from your children?
John Boyer: Here's the bullet 4: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#action-delete
John Boyer: Now it says you can't delete a readonly node; the proposal is you can't delete nodes from readonly parents.
Nick van: So you say you cannot be deleted if a parent is readonly. But if you delete the parent then you can delete it anyway.
John Boyer: Is anybody opposed to this change? Sounds like a resolution to me.
Nick van: And for submission as well?
John Boyer: Delete and replace should act the same.
Nick van: readonly-ness inherits so if an ancestor is readonly then the parent is readonly.

Resolution 2007-10-10.1: Deletion or replacement of a node (subtree) is forbidden if the parent of a node is readonly, but allowed if only the node itself is readonly.

Action 2007-10-10.6: John Boyer to implement resolution that deletion or replacement of a node (subtree) is forbidden if the parent of a node is readonly, but allowed if only the node itself is readonly.

* IRC Minutes


* Meeting Ends