W3C Forms teleconference February 25, 2009

* Present

John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Paul Butcher, WebBackplane
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
Uli Lissé, DreamLabs
Charlie Wiecha, IBM
Erik Bruchez, Orbeon [joined late]

* Agenda


* Previous Minutes

* Lazy authoring improvements


John Boyer: It's hard to do lazy-author parsing with just an output/@value.
John Boyer: Uli suggested we create default instance data for cases where we don't have any UI binding. My read is that a value is an expression. We limit ref in lazy authoring to non-colonized refs. It might be more difficult to parse XPath expressions looking for NCNames. I think we just added an instance to the test case, but does anybody want to work on it?
Leigh Klotz: One option is that we could combine Uli's proposal of an empty instnace, and then re-define the parsing in terms of insert events.
John Boyer: That's an interesting refinement. Even if you define it in terms of an insert action, I don't know that that solves the issue of what to insert based on the value expression.
Leigh Klotz: At least you wouldn't have no instance, so you would have a context, so output/@value would work.
John Boyer: We could you get a default empty instnace. Then if we find any refs, we add them in. I don't know that we have to do them via an insert. That could be disconcerting. I don't know that we need people hooking into it.
Leigh Klotz: Starting with an empty instance and adding to it seems more explainable to me.
John Boyer: Is it enough that we fix the test case for now or should we fix XForms 1.1?
Leigh Klotz: I think it's only important for XForms for HTML, and it's not thought out enough for XForms 1.1
John Boyer: OK, so it's for XForm 1.2, and we fix the test case to have an empty instance.

Resolution 2009-02-25.1: For http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Feb/0056.html we fix the test case and defer possible changes to processing of lazy-authoring empty instances to XForms 1.2.

John Boyer: So if we make get the default, do we want it fixed sooner? So it's for 1.2?
Steven Pemberton: OK.

Resolution 2009-02-25.2: We re-visit http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Feb/0082.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Feb/0082.html for XForms 1.2.

* XForms 1.1 Issues

John Boyer: What happens if you refer to a namespace node in XPath.
Paul Butcher: You can.
John Boyer: What happens if you delete it.
Steven Pemberton: Whoa!
John Boyer: I think he suggests we ignore it. We have some ignore cases in insert. We probably need some in delete. We say you can't delete the document element, for example. He says we should do the same for the root node. He also points out these issues for insert and setvalue.
Leigh Klotz: We can't really say that we prohibit non-DOM operations on the basis that we require DOM, because we don't require DOM.
John Boyer: Vlad's point is that the inherited namespace nodes are fictitious. You'd have to delete it at the ancestor level, from a DOM perspective.
Nick van: That's not correct; if you still have elements in the namespace, the namespace nodes will still be there.
John Boyer: I think if you allowed deletion of that namespace node the XPath data model would be inconsistent.
Nick van: But after you normalize the document, the attribute will be there again, in DOM.
John Boyer: He argues that it it's an invalid operation, and that namespace nodes are immutable.
Nick van: Isn't the XPath data model immutable by definition?
John Boyer: I guess you're right; there's no discussion of mutation.
Nick van: It's a snapshot...
John Boyer: ...of what's happening at the time. We're defining operations on the XPath data model and as such these are operations that make it not an XPath data model.
Leigh Klotz: My point was that we can't say "You can't do operations on nodes that aren't supported by DOM." We have to be specific.
John Boyer: For what it's worth, the things to prohibit so far are insert/delete/setvalue of namespace node; insert/delete/setvalue of root nodes.
John Boyer: So we don't need interoperability testing because these things aren't possible. We should just say they are no-ops. Any objections?
Charlie Wiecha: Sounds good.

Resolution 2009-02-25.3: We accept implementation feedback for XForms 1.1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2009Feb/0023.html

Action 2009-02-25.2: John Boyer to amend XForms 1.1 in accordance with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2009Feb/0023.html to change insert, delete, and setvalue to say that they ignore changes to namespace nodes and root nodes.


Steven Pemberton: They want to know if you aren't going to attend TPAC in November in California, they are considering cancelling it. So we are to discuss it.
Leigh Klotz: I think Erik and I can make it...
John Boyer: It's reasonable to assume I can make it.
Steven Pemberton: I plan to go.
Nick van: It will be difficult for me. If we're talking about new features, that would be helpful.
Charlie Wiecha: It's important for me for Backplane; I'll try to go.
Nick van: We are in favor of a cheaper solution and moving hotels, and my company has asked me to say that we are in favor. Moving from November to next year would be a big gap then, from June to February.
Steven Pemberton: We could have a virtual meeting in November.
John Boyer: We have two virtual days already in November.
Steven Pemberton: So our reply is that there's a good chance we will attend and that we think it is valuable.
Nick van: Normally, until now the TPAC have been in expensive hotels. We would prefer a not so expensive hotel.
Steven Pemberton: There's no requirement that you go to the hotel.
Nick van: But they do ask that you go there for the rooms.

Resolution 2009-02-25.4: The Forms WG sees value in the November TPAC and many members plan to attend.

* AC Meeting


Steven Pemberton: Forms WG members should attend the AC meeting as there will be discussion of XForms, HTML5, and XHTML. There is always the possibility of joining by phone, but they are planning breakout groups which makes remote joining harder.
John Boyer: Charlie, you're going to talk about AJAX library in the browser?
Charlie Wiecha: Yes.
John Boyer: I saw the XHTML2/XForms discussion together.
Steven Pemberton: We do get grouped together.
Charlie Wiecha: It's XML on the client, all together.
John Boyer: And XForms for HTML?
Charlie Wiecha: I will bring it up.

* Test suite changes

John Boyer: Erik, did you get CVS access?
Erik Bruchez: Not yet.
Steven Pemberton: I requested it. They may be really busy at the moment.
Erik Bruchez: It was xf:output with label only. 3.2.2.h.
John Boyer: Would you fix others similarly?
Erik Bruchez: I'll check.
John Boyer: Please send a note to public-forms and cc www-forms when you check them in.

John Boyer: Nick?
Nick van: I started on the encoding but haven't finished.
John Boyer: Will you be able to indicate which tests have changed?
Nick van: There were about 12.

John Boyer: Thanks to Nick to help us by rolling up the test suite changes and notifying people.

Paul Butcher: I've found some possibly erroneous tests I've found with Ubiquity and listed them in the Ubiquity tracker.
John Boyer: That would be great.

Nick van: There are a number of tests with ASCII encoding: 185 of them.
Leigh Klotz: I would count that as one change myself. Plus the ones that we fixed at the F2F for other reasons, to there were more.

* Test 7.11.2.b


John Boyer: This one Nick pointed out sets up a handler for xforms-link-exception, which won't happen.
John Boyer: I thought I was supposed to get an action item to amend XForms 1.1 for link and version exceptions to say that we don't expect the UI to be running, nor action handlers to fire.
Leigh Klotz: The F2F actions are all in the IRC log.
Nick van: I already processed the IRC log.

Action 2009-02-25.3: John Boyer to amend XForms 1.1 for xforms-link- and xforms-version- exceptions to say that we don't expect the UI to be running, nor action handlers to fire, as discussed at the Feb 2009 / Google / Mountain View F2F

John Boyer: We don't need to test the event function in this way. We have another test. I think we should just eliminate this test. Anybody uncomfortable?

Resolution 2009-02-25.5: We drop test 7.11.2.b because there is another test of the event function and this test is erroneous.

Action 2009-02-25.4: Nick van den Bleeken to drop XForms 1.1 test 7.11.2.b

John Boyer: There is a test for xforms-link-error event dispatch for a load action. FormsPlayer does detect a bad URL for a load; formsPlayer will test you that it's unable to access it. Unlike other implementations, which simply delegate the load to the browser. The actual test suite test claims that the author could have a handler for xforms-link-error. formsPlayer does not seem to support the dispatch and handling of that event. So at the F2F we resolved to get rid of the feature. We figured the formsPlayer team wouldn't mind. formsPlayer can continue to report the problem to the user.

Action 2009-02-25.5: John Boyer to remove xforms-link-error from XForms 1.1

Action 2009-02-25.6: Nick van den Bleeken to remove xforms-link-error tests XForms 1.1

Action 2009-02-25.7: John Boyer to remove resource-uri example from event function in XForms 1.1.

* IRC Minutes


* Meeting Ends