Charlie Wiecha, IBM
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Mark Birbeck, x-port.net
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Uli Lissé, DreamLabs
Keith Wells, IBM
Lars Opperman, Sun
Roger Perez, SATEC
Blake Jones, ViewPlus Technologies/DAISY
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
John Boyer: We need an announcement
page.
Leigh Klotz: What happened with the
time?
John Boyer: We got 2:15 so we can do
all talks. Did you get the email saying what needed to be
done?
Leigh Klotz: Where?
John Boyer: I had in mind that there
were three basic tasks, so you already have an action item to do
this.
Leigh Klotz:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Sep/att-0067/actions-2007-09-19.html#klotzleigh
Ah here.
John Boyer: So you and Steven ended up
with the action to create the conference blurb http://www.w3.org/2007/09/12-forms-minutes.html#action01
Leigh Klotz: Where do we publish
it?
John Boyer: You send the it to me and
I send it to Dave Steinhart.
Blake Jones: [joins]
John Boyer: We need better attendance at the teleconference and the F2F meetings. It's always less fun dealing with the faults people have found but we need one last push to the end. I see you're rallying on the list to get the work items done, but we've got some folks who aren't here on the phone and we wish were. It would be nice to have Susan, Joern, and Mark Seaborne, and Raman, and Sebastian, and also more participation at the F2F. It will be more fun, focused on the future versions of XForms. I'll start paying attention to the requirements for membership in good standing.
John Boyer: The other aspect is the
action item list; there are actions on lots of folks. I just
finished one of Charlie's.
Charlie Wiecha: I'll do one of yours.
When is the publishing moratorium before the tech plenary?
John Boyer: I'm guessing a week
before.
Nick van: [irc] We've had some
negative replies too
John Boyer: Yes, we'll get to some of
those in a minute, though I don't have the latest responses in
today's. We have to deal with those comments. I need to go in on
Friday morning to the HCG and say we're not going to make the end
of September for CR. What do you think is reasonable for 1.1?
Charlie Wiecha: We don't have that
many more open issues, just the negative replies.
John Boyer: There's a couple of issues
from Erik, and the Schema issues; we need Erik. There's a fair
number of action items from the F2F. For what it's worth, all the
work we're doing is tightening up XForms 1.1 substantially. We know
there are the occasional faults, such as the model dispatching
events to the UI instead of the UI dispatching its own events, but
we've decided to defer those architectural issues. There's work
left to do here, and a couple of open items left. If people can get
their action items done, we can advance during the second or third
week of October.
Charlie Wiecha: I can get the Schema
updates and I only have 4 or 5 others so it sounds doable.
John Boyer: If there are action items
that aren't applicable to XForms 1.1 you could do those later.
Nick van: There are some tweaks to
the actions, but the core form controls is already OK in the
Schema. The action items and the data types need to be done. Should
I do it with a union?
Leigh Klotz: It has to be a union to
match string and integer; a pattern wouldn't.
Nick van: OK then I can do it. I
posted the schema in the emails.
John Boyer: What about doing the
schema updates for the actions?
Charlie Wiecha: I volunteered for
those.
John Boyer: Do you want Nick to finish
the datatypes and then pass the file back to you.
Charlie Wiecha: That's probably
best.
John Boyer: Then I'll get it back from
Charlie and update the link in XForms 1.1 after I check it
in.
Nick van: I'll send it tomorrow.
John Boyer: I appreciate your getting
it done.
Uli Lissé: I've sent this
work.
Nick van: [irc] It's on the list
too.
John Boyer: I'll do that. That set of
example will fuel our discussion about XForms 1.2 streamlined
actions.
Nick van: [irc] I also started on the
examples.
John Boyer: Mark, Nick, and
Sebastian. Nick is busy on XForms 1.1. What do we propose for the
charter for that? How about WF2 plus reasonable changes? Have you
started on that?
Mark Birbeck: We need to work on where
to start spending resources now that RDFa is nearly done.
Nick van: The same for me. I'll be on
XForms 1.1 for the next couple of weeks at least.
John Boyer: We need to make sure the
pieces are there to meet the charter requirements of WF2 plus
reasonable changes to XForms 1.1 plus reasonable changes, and
that's what we're calling XForms 1.2. Mark, could you pull together
some kind of email to get onto that list?
Mark Birbeck: In relation to the
charter?
John Boyer: Next week.
Action 2007-09-26.1: Mark Birbeck to prepare email for XForms 1.2 / WF2 charter issues.
John Boyer: We need to start adding
controls. I don't want to add them all into core but we should have
a plan.
Leigh Klotz: XBL?
John Boyer: Or publish as notes. And
we should CC the public forms list with the notes.
Leigh Klotz: On XForms 1.0 Basic
Profile, we need PicoForms to sign off on the implementation
report. There are some unanswered in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Aug/
from 20, 21, and 22 August from David Landwehr. We need those
resolved to get the implementation report done.
John Boyer: Keith can you handle those
in the next week?
Keith Wells: I will do my best.
Action 2007-09-26.2: Keith Wells to read unanswered messages http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Aug/ from 20, 21, and 22 August from David Landwehr and answer, fix, or report to WG for discussion.
Mark Birbeck: I'll get my list pruned by next week.
John Boyer: I have no action items left from 2006 and all are fairly recent.
Blake; I haven't done anything on the action from last May. I should be able to get that done in the next week or two.Leigh Klotz: What do I do about the
one that says to file a last-call comment?
John Boyer: It's done.
Leigh Klotz: OK, I'll go send mail to
the list about the ones that are closed.
John Boyer: Uli, I know you're working on the insert and delete examples.
John Boyer: Lars, your 2006 action
item?
Lars Opperman: I never found the time
to get it really going.
John Boyer: "Lars to document the
XForms 1.0 processing model using a formal method as described at
W3C Tech plenary, March 2006" should be at least 1.1 by now.
Lars Opperman: I always came to a
point where I needed to build formal models for XML Events or DOM
or XPath, which is a bit much.
John Boyer: Is this going to get
done?
Lars Opperman: I don't think so.
John Boyer: So can you send a note
saying it isn't going to get done?
Lars Opperman: Yes.
Charlie Wiecha: And I have one
dependent on it, a state-chart view of that, so we can eliminate
that too.
John Boyer: That's fair.
John Boyer: We need to ping Joern and Sebastian.
John Boyer: Nick?
Nick van: [irc] I will clean up my
list too.
John Boyer: Keith, I know you've
done some of them.
Keith Wells: The first is done (F2F)
and I'm not sure where the others sit as they are old.
John Boyer: If you have an action item
that needs to get off the list but you're not sure what to do, send
email to the list.
Charlie Wiecha: my list...
John Boyer: Group and switch are
targets of MIP events.
John Boyer: ...
Charlie Wiecha: ...
John Boyer: So send a note out with
the items you need closed out.
Charlie Wiecha: I'll do that.
John Boyer: Any experience with
IRIs that are illegal URIs? Felix claims that IRIs are a subset of
XLink, and XLink is linked by XML Schema 1.0. It may be referenced
but not by anyURI. He's not asking us to reference IRI instead of
anyURI but instead clarify whether support is required or whether
it comes from the host language. I don't understand that. When we
say a src or resource attribute is of type anyURI, why is that not
clear that we require that anyURI can go there.
Leigh Klotz: I think the lexical space
by process is a bit confusing and then we have new RFC's from
IETF.
John Boyer: The new RFCs are
referenced in XML Schema 1.1 and it says that it will use any
updated RFC.
Leigh Klotz: I think that's what they
want to have done in XML Schema 1.0 but they didn't.
John Boyer: So we should reply that we
use anyURI as defined in XML Schema 1.0 SE and that that is
normative.
Leigh Klotz: We can't really interpret
XML Schema 1.0 in our last call comments; that task should be left
to the Schema WG.
John Boyer: The question is whether
XForms requires it normatively or whether it is from the host
language. The issue is we have src attribute on instance now as
defined by XForms normatively instead of being required of the host
language.
Leigh Klotz: So it has a
datatype.
John Boyer: Yes. We added it, but the
data type for resource was omitted. So we added that.
Nick van: [irc] but that is no longer
normative...in the schema...in the schema it is xsd:anyURI
John Boyer: But since the schema is no
longer normative, we now say it in the spec.
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#structure-abstract
Nick van: [irc] ok sorry
John Boyer: [irc] propose responding
to i18n group by saying that yes we do now say xsd:anyURI in the
normative part of the spec
John Boyer: Any objections?
Resolution 2007-09-26.1: Respond to i18n group by saying that yes we do now say xsd:anyURI in the normative part of the spec.
Action 2007-09-26.3: John Boyer to reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007Sep/0054.html by saying that yes we do now say xsd:anyURI in the normative part of the spec