W3C Forms teleconference September 5, 2007

* Present

John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Mark Birbeck, x-port.net
Mark Seaborne, PicoForms
Rafael Benito, SATEC
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
Uli Lissé, DreamLabs
Keith Wells, IBM
Charlie Wiecha, IBM
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers

* Agenda


* Previous minutes:

* XForms Conference at XML Conference

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Jul/0055.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Jul/0036.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Jul/0024.html

John Boyer: There are two issues. First, is the keynote speaker. It's looking promising. Do we have any progress on deciding the presentations.
Leigh Klotz: Did you get any answer on extending the presentations?
John Boyer: No, but I'll ask.
Leigh Klotz: We'd like you to ask for more time again, even less than enough for a full presentation, so that we can either have a full paper or combine two or three into a panel (either from the same company, or on the same subject0.
John Boyer: I'll ask.

Action 2007-09-5.1: John Boyer to query about getting extra time, even 15 minutes, for the XForms conference.

* Next FtF - Hosted by SATEC September 12 to 14, 2007

Attendance Questionnaire: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34637/ftfsept2007/
Nick van: [irc] for the SATEC f2f are we going to stay in the center or near to SATEC?
Steven Pemberton: That would be best but I am bound by the per diem. But generally, people are staying in the center?
Rafael Benito: A taxi will be 20-30 Euros but be careful.
John Boyer: So can we meet downtown and pool a taxi?
Steven Pemberton: Do you recommend a place to meet?
Rafael Benito: Which hotel?
Steven Pemberton: Is there a central spot?
Rafael Benito: Puerta del Sol.
Nick van: [irc] charley you were staying in this hotel http://www.nh-hotels.com/nh/en/hotels/spain/madrid/nh-abascal.html
Charlie Wiecha: [irc] I got 109 euros there. but that was a negotiated rate
Rafael Benito: But I can recommend a less populated place.
John Boyer: I'm at Sofitel.
Steven Pemberton: There's a metro at the Puerta del Sol, so we could gather there and take a taxi.
Charlie Wiecha: Meet for breakfast.
Steven Pemberton: Do we want to agree on what time we're going to meet there?
Rafael Benito: Our working hours are 9:00-6:30, but meal times are late. So maybe 9:30-15:30 for the meeting, with a break for lunch at 1:30.
Steven Pemberton: OK.
John Boyer: Sounds good. Where do we meet?
Steven Pemberton: http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=puerta+da+sol,+madrid,+spain
Rafael Benito: Puerta del Sol, under the clock, leaving at 8:45.
Steven Pemberton: So meet at 8:00 for coffee.

Resolution 2007-09-5.1: Meet at Puerta del Sol, under the clock, at 8:00 for coffee, leaving at 8:45. Meeting is at SATEC at 9:30-17:30, with lunch at 1:30.

John Boyer: Will we be able to get lunch within an hour.
Rafael Benito: Yes.

* Big Update Issues

John Boyer: I wanted to clean up a bunch of things that need to be dealt with in part to deal with issues. Some could have been dealt with a with a band aid ("definition of form control") or I could have made the fixes by tightening up definitions, but the intent in creating the editor's draft was not to decide without debate, but to put together spec-ready text to show what we can live with and see what we can change. The problem is that addressing some of the last call contents, here were points of vagueness that made it impossible. I think we're in a better state now even if we make a radically different decision on these points.

* Input and Textarea


John Boyer: The "new line" distinction between input and text area. It was one of the minor issues. I sent an email to clarify why I thought we had to say something about multiline text. I drew the analogy to select vs. select1. XForms has an intent-based user interface. It seems odd that we would have two different controls that have no differences in intent. Whereas textarea says it is intended for multiline text, input says nothing either way. There is a history that input comes from HTML forms and doesn't accept the enter key. The enter doesn't go into input; it is rather gone to submit the form.
Steven Pemberton: We don't say that anywhere.
John Boyer: We don't have a default submission for DOMActivate bubbling up. If you had an input (as opposed to a textarea) then hitting input should cause the implementation set its value and then dispatch DOMActivate to its input.
Steven Pemberton: What I remember is that we had a number of points and some of them are about device independence, and some of what you're describing is platform standards, and aren't definitions of HTML. A device that has no return, or if return is used for some other purpose, we would be overspecifying. We try not to bind the concept; we don't have a return, but we do have activation. We don't say anything about binding to particular keys.
John Boyer: I don't remember I said particular keys.
Steven Pemberton: Return is a key binding. I understand what you're saying but I don't understand how to say it.
John Boyer: I just said "should disallow user entry of multiline text." http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#ui-input I don't say anything about return.
Steven Pemberton: What's the value add? http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#ui-input
John Boyer: Trying to create a hard return...DOMActivation...
Steven Pemberton: I've seen programs that use shift-return for multi-line and return for submit, but those are decisions made by the user agent.
Mark Birbeck: Yes. Also when you copy some text with multi-lines and paste it into a single-line box, you can still paste the data, but to say that the input can't cope means you can't paste it on.
Mark Seaborne: [irc] for our mobile client there is no concept of "return".
Mark Birbeck: You'd have to read it back in. But it's hard to say it in a platform-independent way.
John Boyer: Why do we have textarea at all?
Mark Birbeck: Why do we have select1 vs. select?
John Boyer: When you have a select1...
Steven Pemberton: It's a difference in datatype; one is a list type and the other isn't.
Mark Birbeck: You could have an input control as the only control.
Steven Pemberton: There is a point of view that says we only need one, as you've shown with XBL.
Mark Birbeck: You could have an input control with child of itemset.
Steven Pemberton: Yes.
Mark Birbeck: It's not the that distinction between these controls is as clear as you would think. A boolean with input could be checkboxes, but to me that's a select.
Steven Pemberton: Yes.
Mark Birbeck: Is it possible to do this, John, as we did with help and hint? So we don't say multiline, but we could suggest behavior that the enter key fire the DOMActivate?
John Boyer: And commit the value.
Leigh Klotz: Commit the value first, as we discovered.
John Boyer: Yes. And yes, input allows free-form data, but as you say for boolean, it's not really free-form.
Steven Pemberton: Does input say free-form?
John Boyer: Yes.
Steven Pemberton: I wouldn't agree with that. You can get a date picker. That sounds too specific.
Mark Birbeck: If you bind select1 to a date you should get a date picker as well.
John Boyer: That might be interesting.
Charlie Wiecha: You get a calendar with the two dates highlighted and you get to pick one.
John Boyer: I don't know that anyone is ever going to implement that.
Steven Pemberton: On the other hand we don't believe it should be disallowed.
John Boyer: Textarea says intended for multiline content; input says freeform.
Steven Pemberton: I think anything else is too hard to make it freeform.
John Boyer: All I added was "should disallow entry of multiline text"
Steven Pemberton: I don't agree with that. If you do everything with input and use XBL, it might be possible that an input does accept multiline text.
Mark Birbeck: You're linking multiline text with the enter key. Why would we prevent it? All we're really after is the search scenario where you press enter.
Steven Pemberton: In that case, it's the user agent doing the right thing. Anybody who doesn't do the right thing, people would get cross with them.
Mark Seaborne: [irc] our implementation uses input for multiline text
Mark Birbeck: To have a sentence about it would be quite useful, just like making select many into checkboxes rather than radio buttons; it's a suggestion that works out.
John Boyer: So if we were to add a note to say something, would that be satisfactory.
Steven Pemberton: Yes, an informative note is just fine.
Leigh Klotz: Or an example instead showing DOMActivate?
John Boyer: I can throw that in and get rid of the offending implementation requirement. When does the DOMActivate happen?
Leigh Klotz: We have a graphical example here already of Street.
Mark Birbeck: Something has to commit the data first; that's not part of the definition of input.
John Boyer: When they signify that they want it to be committed?
Leigh Klotz: Is the problem that we can't tie DOMActivate to setting the value?
Mark Birbeck: What about trigger and select?
Leigh Klotz: Trigger doesn't have a value and select already says it doesn't commit unless it is incremental. The question is how to we say that the user agent should offer a way to perform the sequence of commit-value and DOMActivate.
Mark Birbeck: We can say there is a default handler on DOMActivate that commits the value.
Leigh Klotz: Then you get the value committed after the submit.
John Boyer: It only happens after the capture phase.
Mark Birbeck: I think you can say when it happens.
John Boyer: I'd like to see that.

Action 2007-09-5.2: Mark Birbeck to check with XML Events Rec on documentation for when default handlers can be run with regard to input/send[@ev:event=DOMActivate] committing values.

John Boyer: I'll take the action to add the example.

Action 2007-09-5.3: John Boyer to remove line of text about multi-line text and write example for input section showing DOMActivate causing send for group review.

Nick van: If the input is bound to a boolean how do you activate it?
Leigh Klotz: Changing its value.
John Boyer: Maybe in a graphical browser, enter?
Steven Pemberton: Space certainly does it.
John Boyer: We're struggling because we have to put an DOMActivate on every control.
Steven Pemberton: I'm not sure what the value add is here. Nick?
Nick van: I already said it, about the checkbox.
Leigh Klotz: I think it's reasonable for an implementation to active a checkbox when you change it.
Nick van: [irc] but that breaks Johns example for default submissions

* Form Controls

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Aug/0055.html Form control definition issues, e.g. the non-applicability of readonly to group

John Boyer: Sometimes by "form control" we meant to exclude group, and sometimes we meant to include group, switch, and possibly repeat as well. So if you look at the table at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#rpm-events "core form controls" means the non-container controls. But xforms-next and xforms-previous didn't really make sense, so we can go change it. For any place that says core form controls we can say group as well, but then what about switch?
Nick van: [irc] not for all I think
John Boyer: For example, DOMFocusIn, DOFocusOut, I said core+group+switch+repeat because we have setfocus and a last-call comment that says we have to say what it means to set focus to a control that is a repeat. That ended up suggesting that the repeat was a control. xforms-disabled and xforms-enabled list core+group+switch because they have special things with relevance; they impose relevance on their contained controls. I did not list (as a first cut) group and switch as targets for xforms-read-only and xforms-read-write and assumed the spec was wrong. If we do dispatch those, we should clarify in group and switch sections that they don't do anything with them (i.e. they won't force readonly-ness on their contained controls).

* MIPs as information versus enforcing MIPs


John Boyer: Mark Birbeck suggested we go back to vagueness but I think it was inconsistency. We can go with this text as it's better than what was there before. I hear that there was concern with readonly and we can change it. We can check relevant and see if it has a special meaning with action. readonly can be respected by form controls only, or it can be enforced by the model (view + control). So either way. But we should be ready to talk through that at the F2F.
Nick van: [irc] John did you read my e-mail about that?
Mark Birbeck: On vagueness, I think we should have this discussion but we don't have time yet. I'd say that a recursive MVC would be best. I'd like to leave it vague because we don't want to make changes that inhibit other routes that we want to go later on. I'd like to link this to backplane and look at the model as a separate thing and see what we want from it. The problem with the discussion that just happened was Mark Seaborne's point, that some of the things might prevent us from going down another route later, as they imply a philosophical approach that we haven't agreed on.
John Boyer: We have the practical problem that insert and delete insert into readonly content and we have (I'm guessing) some implementations that prohibit it.
Mark Birbeck: We have to ask if we want to get out of XForms 1.1 or not. We have plenty in here that needs to get out now (headers, dynamic submissions). I don't think a problem that we've had since XForms 1.0 needs to be fixed now.
John Boyer: Certainly we need to get more features in. OK, we've reached the top of the hour and will be meeting next week. That's where the changes are coming from. We've got to resolve last-call issues. We're up against the wall; we have to finish in September to CR, but it's looking harried.
Steven Pemberton: We have to work really hard next week. I think we should be able to do it.
John Boyer: We have some hard ones coming up. I'll try to get each last-call issue into a time frame.
Steven Pemberton: One more thing on the agenda: SMIL-3 is in last call and we've been asked to do a review; they use XForms concepts for state.
John Boyer: Anybody to review?
Steven Pemberton: I think Mark.
Mark Birbeck: I will.
Steven Pemberton: I will. And people should have skimmed the section on state in SMIL 3.

* IRC Minutes


* Meeting Ends