Charlie Wiecha, IBM
Erik Bruchez, Orbeon
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Mark Birbeck, x-port.net
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
Uli Lissé, DreamLabs
Keith Wells, IBM
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Dec/0049.html
John Boyer: The virtual day is Feb
1 and the three-day meeting is Feb 4-6.
Keith Wells: The details page is on my
priority to-do list.
Steven Pemberton: The virtual day is
the Friday and the real meeting is the Mon-Tue-Wed.
Charlie Wiecha: Can we decide the time
for the virtual day? I'll be traveling.
John Boyer: So do we have them in the
meeting time zone, or the east coast?
Steven Pemberton: I'll be in the US on
Friday anyway.
Charlie Wiecha: Yes.
John Boyer: I propose 9-5 Eastern time
zone. That seems hard for Europeans.
Nick van: [irc] I'(l be traveling to
the states on Saturday
Steven Pemberton: For Europe that's 2,
3, or 4 in the afternoon. So it wouldn't encroach too much on
bedtime.
Nick van: It is the day before I start
traveling; if it stops at 11 at the latest...
Steven Pemberton: We could have it one
hour earlier; that's awkward for the west coast.
John Boyer: 5am is too early. We could
consider doing six hours.
Charlie Wiecha: That would help those
traveling on Saturday.
John Boyer: Let's do that then.
Charlie Wiecha: Can we use Skype or
are we using Zakim?
John Boyer: I thought we were using
Zakim. Steven?
Steven Pemberton: We can use Zakim. A
virtual whiteboard as well as the IRC channel would be good.
Charlie Wiecha: We can try a web
conference; we have one outside the fire wall. I can call
Zakim.
John Boyer: Anything else?
Steven Pemberton: I should have an
action to produce the F2F page, or we can do it on the wiki.
Uli Lissé: [irc] What about
hotel reservation?
John Boyer: That's what we want Keith
to look into.
Keith Wells: [irc] Yep -- will
do
John Boyer: Do we need the
questionnaire?
Steven Pemberton: We do. Maybe Keith
can produce the page on the wiki.
Action 2008-01-9.1: Steven Pemberton to prepare questionnaire for next F2F.
Action 2008-01-9.2: Keith Wells to produce F2F
info page in wiki based on previous F2F page.http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/FaceToFace
Nick van: [irc] this is the info of
the previous meeting in Raleigh : http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2005/09/f2f/
Charlie Wiecha: I updated the
patent policy and sent it off to those who might be listed as
direct authors; once we get feedback I'll post it to the various
lists. I think Leigh and Steven in addition to IBM folks thought
they would be useful. We need three members. The main changes are
the patent policy for the XG for RF intent with exclusions. People
have to say at the outset of the XG rather than at the end. I also
suggested weekly telecons; it seemed there were enough use cases
and examples for submission, data models, and events that we could
discuss that with some of the other WGs. It's a one-year thing; it
can be renewed. So let me know if it's OK to post by Friday.
John Boyer: Any other agenda items,
please speak up at any time.
John Boyer: Aaron Reed was asking
about this.
Mark Birbeck: We've had some problems
to sort out; I'll try to work on this week.
John Boyer: Maybe two weeks?
Mark Birbeck: OK.
John Boyer: I tried to triage some of
your action items.
Mark Birbeck: Thank you. I thought
that was an excellent summary; thank you. My apologies.
John Boyer: Nick, please handle Mark's
action items from that message.
John Boyer: This came up as a
last-minute problem for CR. We still have an outstanding reference
to ISO-7812, which is an error. We had resolved to get rid of the
reference. But in so doing, I started trying to find some other way
to rationalize the length limit; we said it had to be 12-19 digits,
which is what's specified in the Schema definition. The problem
with that is the only reference we make is the Luhn patent, which
has no explicit length restriction on the number of digits. In
fact, it turns out that one of the big consumers of the Luhn
algorithm is the Canadian social insurance number which is nine
digits long. So I think the solution is to reduce or eliminate the
restriction on the length for cardnumber. So it's really a datatype
that can be used by the UI to allow spaces or dashes between
certain groups of number.
Leigh Klotz: In the first example for
that I had allowed space and dash in the lexical space, but this is
better.
John Boyer: If we were to reduce that
restriction, you have to have at least two digits. It seems like
you might have to have three if you read the patent. Is there any
objection to getting rid of the maximum length requirement? OK,
none. And minimum two? Is that a significant change for CR?
Steven Pemberton: I don't think
so.
John Boyer: I think we should report
it.
Steven Pemberton: That's for sure.
It's a CR issue; it's been determined by someone using it.
John Boyer: Since we're loosening a
restriction, it won't cause existing documents to fail. I propose
length restriction of min=2, no max. Any objections?
Steven Pemberton: If people do use
that for credit card numbers, it won't catch credit cards any
more.
John Boyer: It's already not that
good. It's between 12 and 19 and my credit card is 16.
Steven Pemberton: So you need a
restriction anyway. Maybe we should point it out in the description
of the datatype.
John Boyer: It's already card number,
so it can be used for non-credit cards.
Resolution 2008-01-9.1: For the card type, set length restriction of min=2, no max. Insert example of Canadian social insurance number.
Action 2008-01-9.3: John Boyer to perform spec edits and schema edits for card type change and example.
John Boyer: The I18N group wanted
us to help define ITS rules for how to translate XForms documents.
We said it might not be simple. Does anyone have a business need to
work on XForms Translations.
Leigh Klotz: What's the ask? Produce
examples? Meet to decide what to do?
John Boyer: They want someone to be a
point of contact and become more familiar with ITS. Maybe the
initial bit is to have a phone call.
Leigh Klotz: Is it this? http://www.w3.org/TR/its/
Steven Pemberton: What exactly do they
want us to do?
John Boyer: They want to wind up with
guidance to the world about how to translate XForms documents;
either rules or guidelines for how to write rules for specific
XForms documents.
Steven Pemberton: So it's a way of
marking up things to be translated and not.
John Boyer: They have a v1.0 Rec but
they may have a new set of requirements. The ref, for example, or
value, in XForms.
Steven Pemberton: Or src.
John Boyer: Then how do you translate
the document?
Leigh Klotz: I'll take a look at
the document and I can participate in a call with the group.
John Boyer: The main thing is to
contact Felix Sasaki; they're willing to do some work. They don't
want to do the wrong thing with XForms.
Action 2008-01-9.4: Leigh Klotz to read http://www.w3.org/TR/its/ and contact Felix Sasaki to discuss XForms.
Incomplete example in inputmode Appendix
John Boyer: Steven, I did want to
wait until you got back to discuss this. There's been a bit of to
and fro with Ian Jacobs on what the short names are supposed to
mean.
Steven Pemberton: Did we decide on our
philosophy?
Leigh Klotz: We asked for an xforms1
shortname and got a no.
John Boyer: No, it was xforms11 they
didn't want.
Leigh Klotz: Like svg21?
Steven Pemberton: It does happen quite
a lot; xhtml11.
John Boyer: So the question is what
does xforms point to? Steven, you wanted the very latest document
even if it's not a rec.
Steven Pemberton: In the future, when
we have more than one major version, xforms should give you the
most recent recommendation.
John Boyer: Good; that's what we want.
For XML Events, it's pointing at the XML Events 2 Working Draft;
that's caused some problems for XForms 1.0 TE, because it used the
short name.
Steven Pemberton: I believe that
normative references should use dated links since otherwise you
spec changes under your feet.
John Boyer: So we have a bit of
patchwork to do. It's a lot of work keeping up with the links as
the editions change. Shortnames by version would be helpful.
Steven Pemberton: So XForms 10, a
shortname for the latest edition of 10. If I said xforms1 I would
expect the most recent spec in the xforms 1.* series, which is
xforms 1.1.
John Boyer: Even if it's not a
recommendation?
Steven Pemberton: Let's stick to
recommendations for now.
John Boyer: I'm not sure if they agree
with that. If they don't have any two-digit short names, how do you
get to the latest working draft? So we need to ask W3 management to
come up with a system.
Steven Pemberton: Did you get such a
thing from Ian Jacobs?
John Boyer: He said when XForms 1.1
becomes a recommendation, that deprecates XForms 1.0.
Steven Pemberton: Here's the official
W3C document on this: http://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions
written by Ian.
John Boyer: Steven, we're ok for now
but eventually we'd like something better. Can you pick this
up?
Action 2008-01-9.5: Steven Pemberton and John Boyer to continue discussing shortnames for recommendations and drafts.
John Boyer: Uli or Nick? We've been
discussing strategies for not having a model element: submission or
instance anywhere. We're still mulling through exactly when does
the model element have to show up. Can I put a submission in the
middle of an action sequence rather than calling a send? Do we want
to add a position semantic to submission, so that based on where it
is it might run without the usual mechanisms?
Leigh Klotz: If there's no model them
where do you put definitions of submission that aren't run
automatically?
John Boyer: (summarizes
proposal)
Mark Birbeck: I think that would be
confusing. But there's something I was going to propose; stick with
the submission element, and the send action has the same attributes
as submission, and then attributes on send override submission. So
a use case might be a PUT and a GET to the same server. You could
use a variable, but then you have to use setvalue. So you could do
"send method=put". So submission is still a useful
place to collect them attributes, event handlers, etc.
John Boyer: You may have proposed that
ages ago as well.
Mark Birbeck: We didn't have a good
way to do that.
Leigh Klotz: What about nested
submissions, with just method overrides in your example?
Mark Birbeck: That could work; we need
to look at the semantics of the actions.
John Boyer: We have a mechanism for
doing it in 1.1.
Leigh Klotz: You can do both; you can
have a nested submission and you can have the send with attributes.
Then submission is always a definition and send is always an
invocation.
Mark Birbeck: Send with attributes can
work if you have no submission as well; it would be a "default"
submission.
John Boyer: But that means you
duplicate the submission attributes.
Leigh Klotz: You could do it with a
schema type.
Mark Birbeck: Or put a send inside
submission.
Charlie Wiecha: That's one of the
proposals in Uli's note.
John Boyer: No it's submission inside
submit. ev:event.
Mark Birbeck: That's another
discussion. Allowing inline stuff; one of my guys suggested XML
directly inside the insert action. You could have a send that can
contain a submission that contains inline instance data. If you
want to send a block of fixed data then rather than a ref you could
have inline data. There's a general concept of having inline
contents in addition to reference by id.
John Boyer: We're also using idrefs
like this. We have the bind attribute. bind inside input would be
funny.
Mark Birbeck: readonly without a
model. It would be powerful.
John Boyer: I mean a bind element
inside the input to identify the node to which the input
binds.
Mark Birbeck: bind nodeset inside the
input? I like that. For dynamically generated forms: data type,
readonly, etc. All pretty handy. Otherwise you need two passes
(form and model).
Leigh Klotz: Are we saying submission
in send or duplicating the send attributes?
Mark Birbeck: Putting submission in
send makes it easier.
Leigh Klotz: What about send method
overrides?
Mark Birbeck: Hmmm.
Uli Lissé: I am thinking about
send/submission. I don't like the Erik proposed of submission as an
action. I do think replacing indirection by a child element is a
nice way. I thought my proposal would give simpler authoring. nick:
[irc] allowing submission attributes on the send is the same as
allowing readonly on input
Uli Lissé: I don't think so.
MIPs are related to a model item. Two or more form controls can be
bound to a model item.
Nick van: You might want one readonly
and the other not. It's the same concept as putting the submission
attributes on the send. You just have to define how they
behave.
John Boyer: Why do we want to get rid
of the model element entirely? Right now submission is part of the
model and we're discussing when we need the model element. One
possibility is never.
Mark Birbeck: My motivation has been
lazy authoring/onramp, the gradual stepping up. Having bind and
submission outside the model is quite useful.
Nick van: I feel like that too. With a
simple form and no need to do something when it succeeds or fails,
there's no reason to have handlers in the model. If you need action
handlers, it's good to add the model.
John Boyer: So there would be no
events, or a hidden model?
Nick van: A hidden submission but no
event handlers.
Leigh Klotz: Send or submit with
attributes?
Uli Lissé: submission being a
child of submit would override.
John Boyer: So you create a formal
submission element as a child of send or submit. So we need a
strawman proposal.
Uli Lissé: I don't like the
attributes on send or submit. Where do xforms-submit-done go?
John Boyer: They go to the hidden
implicit submission, which is pretty cool.
Nick van: I can try to write it up but
I'm on holiday next week but I can start when I come back.
John Boyer: Does someone else want to
do it sooner?
Mark Birbeck: Is this 1.2 or
2.0?
John Boyer: Right now it sounds like
ease-of-authoring. We don't have enough clarity yet. But it could
be 1.2. We have a short timeframe; last call this year.
Mark Birbeck: I wouldn't mind a go at
it quicker than the next two weeks.
Action 2008-01-9.6: Nick van den Bleeken and Mark Birbeck to write up submission, submit, and send attributes and child nesting.
John Boyer: Can anyone do
this?
Uli Lissé: I can do this.
Action 2008-01-9.7: Uli Lissé to collect deferred last call issues from http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/xforms-issues/ and put them into the Future Features area of the Wiki.
John Boyer: We discussed this last
year; is it the one without an id? Steven didn't like the change.
For example, and XHTML page with a portlets, two of which contain
XForms. Does the sudden existence of two portlets cause the entire
document to change?
Leigh Klotz: XBL does something like
this with anonymous IDs.
John Boyer: So you'd have to write it
differently for use in portlets? That seems harsh. What about a
containing form element?
Mark Birbeck: I'd like to see a form
element with a collection of submission+instance in 1.2.
John Boyer: Each form element would
set up a local context.
Mark Birbeck: Locally-scoped
first-model, first-instance.
Nick van: [irc] I'm not sure we need
instance outside the model, but if the model isn't there you have
an implicit instance and when you add a model you could specify if
there is an implicit instance, so the first instance isn't the
default but the implicit one
John Boyer: We we concerned that if
someone started with a form with no instance and then declared one
we wanted to know if it was overriding the default instance. Then
we decided that if there was an instance with an id then it was not
overriding. Then what if it wasn't the first in build order; then
as long as it doesn't have an id, it's an override, but Steven said
that was a problem.
Mark Birbeck: Didn't we come up with
some suggestion for the instance function to address either the
first instance or the anonymous instance?
John Boyer: The parameterless one
addresses the default, the first one in build order, whether or not
it has an id.
John Boyer: We're about out of time. Let's have more discussion on email about this and pick it back up next week. Any volunteers to be the prime mover for this?