Charlie Wiecha, IBM
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Mark Birbeck, x-port.net
Paul Butcher, x-port.net
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C (left early)
Keith Wells, IBM
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Erik Bruchez, Orbeon (joined late)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Aug/0082.html
John Boyer: Steven will be chairing
the next two weeks. Maybe it's time for blue-sky sessions and
reducing call times.
Steven Pemberton: I've always been
fine with 60-minute calls.
Keith Wells: If we don't have any
thing to talk about we could finish early.
Steven Pemberton: Sure.
John Boyer: That sounds like a good
idea.
Charlie Wiecha: Take a look at the streamlined syntax in Ubiquity. There's no repeat or XPath syntax yet. There's some connection between backplane and an early proposal multi-modal using XHTML+Voice using XML Events. Before streamlined syntax, there was no implied data model though. So we may be able to revisit XHTML+Voice and use the implied model and go back to MM at the Tech Plenary. I'll put it up on the wiki.
XRX
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Aug/0090.html
Steven Pemberton: I got the stuff
together and sent links.
John Boyer: Can you pull together the
final version?
Steven Pemberton: Yes, just a couple
of lines and Mark's comment.
John Boyer: Can you put that on the
overview page?
Steven Pemberton: Sure.
John Boyer: Does it go out to
www-forms or just the forms page.
Steven Pemberton: I don't know. I
liked the way we did it for RDFa with a blog.
John Boyer: We did a version of that
with the wiki, but then we got the wiki out of date, and then the
news items weren't on the home page.
Steven Pemberton: So we'll put it on
the home page. And another item as well, on accessibility in
Firefox.
Leigh Klotz: I think A11Y is a sleeper
issue and is good for us.
John Boyer: We have an A11Y expert at
IBM who can help.
Charlie Wiecha: We're drilling into
that on the backplane group, with ARIA.
Steven Pemberton: Gregory said to me
that the A11Y community is panting for XForms to get adopted.
John Boyer: So yes on both news
items.
John Boyer: It would be good to get
this.
Steven Pemberton: Hopefully Kenneth
should get it to us by Wednesday.
John Boyer: I'll send him mail.
John Boyer: I'm coordinating for Tech Plenary and have some responses.
Steven Pemberton: I sent it today.
Leigh Klotz: I haven't started this yet. I've been working on submission headers.
John Boyer: In modularization we're
separating this out, and in repeat it says that certain behaviors
behave as if they were in response to xforms-insert and
xforms-delete. So technically it's a notification event as there is
no default handler, but it's not a pure notification event from the
author's standpoint any more. Should we attach a note?
Steven Pemberton: Can we also say that
the XForms processor is also notified?
John Boyer: We don't rigorously define
"notification event." Erik has interpreted it to mean author event
only, but if you look closely at http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#evt-insert
it is what comes after default action. So we could remove
"notification event" and say "default action: none."
Steven Pemberton: If we have no
normative meaning for notification event, then that's fine.
John Boyer: Perhaps we can just delete
them throughout the spec and just leave "default action."
Leigh Klotz: So it won't have a
default action but repeat will listen for it?
John Boyer: Yes. http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#ui-repeat-processing
Steven Pemberton: [leaves]
John Boyer: The repeat module uses the
event context information to find out if the inserted or deleted
nodes have anything to do with it, and if so, update. This gives a
more precise definition of when the repeat updates happen.
John Boyer: So the action is for me to
remove "notification event only" completely from the XForms 1.1
spec. Is everybody happy with that?
Resolution 2008-09-3.1: We remove "notification event only" from XForms 1.1 as it is not normatively defined and is causing confusion.
Action 2008-09-3.1: John Boyer remove "notification event only" from XForms 1.1 as it is not normatively defined and is causing confusion.
Leigh Klotz: I'm trying to get
agreement with Philip Fennel and Aaron Reed. There are two new
things: combine looks valueable, though error or exception may be
not be (and what error) and then we need to allow multiple value
elements to allow the submission method to combine the
values.
John Boyer: xforms-submit-error
Leigh Klotz: Does this happen at
submission time or serialization time?
John Boyer: It could be validation,
prior to serialization. We have an xforms-submit-serialize event
but I don't know if we allow that to quit or indicate errors.
John Boyer: The values could be done
with concat.
Leigh Klotz: Then you need to know to
quote and use commas, which is really HTTP's responsibility, unless
we pull back and say all headers are MIME headers and ask teh user
to do the quoting and ordering and so on.
John Boyer: http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#submit-evt-submit
We calculate submission headers after validation. See number 5.
There might be an xforms-submit-error there.
Leigh Klotz: We'd need an error
type.
John Boyer: Yes.
Leigh Klotz: I'll propose one.
John Boyer: What's the use case for
the condition?
Leigh Klotz: It's the opposite of
replace. It gives you an error if you attempt to set a header that
is already set, most usefully from an existing browser
header.
John Boyer: Or if you have
nodeset/header with calculations.
John Boyer: It sounds like the headers
are mixed in. Can you calculate the headers before initiating the
URI request?
Leigh Klotz: I assume it's a loop
unrolling that happens to create a "display list" of names, values,
and combinators, which are then serialized into MIME in the HTTP
method handler (or whatever).
John Boyer: So the problem is that
maybe it's not possible in step 5 to ask the browser what steps are
possible.
Leigh Klotz: Step 5 calculates this;
step 9 puts it into use.
John Boyer: You'll have to say that
you aren't doing the combining in step 5.
Leigh Klotz: Actual determination of
header serialization is done in the submission serialization.
John Boyer: What if there is not a
combine attribute?
Leigh Klotz: That's what I'd like
combine="error" for. It lets you set the header once, as long as it
doesn't conflict.
John Boyer: What do we currently say?
"The header element can be used to contribute information to the
preamble of a submission in a manner appropriate to the protocol."
So there's no previous behavior.
John Boyer: So what about the default
for combine for Accept being what people most want?
Leigh Klotz: That would not satisfy
the use case since if you default to append, it doesn't do anything
for content negotiation.
John Boyer: Append is
implementable.
Nick van: [irc] I think we can use
append as default, because if you have multiples in your document
you want this default.
Leigh Klotz: So if we make append the
default, then we don't need error.
John Boyer: That sounds like the best
thing. It also makes the existing behavior the same. Adding
multiple value elements is the same; existing content still
works.
Leigh Klotz: Is the best copy of the
schema the one in the spec?
John Boyer: Yes. It is linked.
Leigh Klotz: I'll produce a change
packet.
John Boyer: I'll check it in for
you.
Review new organization before splitting
Erik Bruchez: [joins]
John Boyer: I did the new organization
of this module and then will discuss that before cutting it into
five-odd specs. Section 2 (XPath Function Library) is broken into
four specs if we do it this way.
John Boyer: There are data
integrity functions, date and tiem functions, conditional
(predicate, decision) functions, and math functions. There is some
question about whether random belongs in math or data integrity. I
bought Erik's argument that it belonged in the math package.
John Boyer: Any comments?
Leigh Klotz: What's left in here once
you pull these out, or do you replicate it?
John Boyer: More or less replicate,
but there's some slight tweaking.
Leigh Klotz: So four, not five.
John Boyer: The introduction would
look more like the introduction to section 2. I'm not sure that we
need to refer to EXSLT any more; that's for the consuming
profile.
John Boyer: Is everybody happy with
this division of functions? OK, then I'll divide these into four
specs and get them ready for publication.
Nick van: [irc] yes, only the name
'conditional functions' is a bit vague
John Boyer: One of the things that I
saw recently in another WG in Interaction (HGC) is that they
published a first public WD and Last Call WD. So there is precedent
to take some of these to last call. We should also do instance and
binding pretty soon.
Leigh Klotz: The theory being that
it's content that we already have anyway.
John Boyer: Yes, it's division points.
We're publishing these as individual modules and all have XForms
1.1 modules. There's a slight deviation with instance, but the CR
period is a time for implementations, but do we need test suites
and implementations separate from XForms 1.1?
Leigh Klotz: Is there a separate test
module for each module in 1.2?
Nick van: [irc] creating test suites
for the modules is a lot of work but for adoption outside XForms
you probably want separate test suites
John Boyer: Functions will be easy,
but binding and instance data will require tweaks: binding has
context (not just insert and delete). So we can't use XForms 1.1
implementations for binding. So we can go to CR at least.
John Boyer: Nick, you're on
vacation so we can't start on bind.
Nick van: It's been a while since I've
looked at it.
John Boyer: Nick, have you heard
from Joern on XForms 1.1?
Nick van: I'm still working on
resources; vacations are a problem right now.
John Boyer: Keith, how about
Ubiquity testing?
Keith Wells: The XHTML+XML content
type support is lacking. We can rename the tests to get past that
point but I don't want to do that right now.
John Boyer: Is there a browser where
the test suite works with Ubiquity?
Keith Wells: It doesn't yet handle
.xhtml files and I have changes which will make it review. In IE
it's working with minor problems.
John Boyer: Do the test suite files
work in IE with Ubiquity?
Keith Wells: Not without these
changes.
John Boyer: It turns out we published
CR at the end of November last year so it would be good to go to PR
in under a year. There is also a publication moratorium around the
Tech Plenary, so it will be around November at best. We can report
Ubiquity under Firefox, but testing under IE is necessary. Since
the Firefox plugin is available, that's valuable.
Keith Wells: We are re-doing the
Firefox implementation report at your request; I'm finishing that
up in day or two.
John Boyer: Zip files are a problem
for the W3C list servers so rename it to .data.