W3C Forms teleconference June 17, 2009

* Present

Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Uli Lissé, DreamLabs
Charlie Wiecha, IBM
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (miutes)
Erik Bruchez, Orbeon
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers

* Agenda


* Previous Minutes

* PR Transition Request needed


Steven Pemberton: I have annotated the changes and would like an extra check from you.
John Boyer: I'll have a look at that and get back to you.
Steven Pemberton: Please make sure you agree with the contents as your name is at the bottom of it as well. As soon as you say it's OK I'll send it off.
John Boyer: I'll double check on the "should" and "must", submission header. I'll do another scan through the diff marks.

* XML Events 2 Comment

John Boyer: At the end, we thought we'd send a comment to XHTML2 but I'm not sure that comment got produced. I think it was about not being able to set context information. We need someone to do this.
John Boyer: There exists context information for events; while you can dispatch events you can't set context information.
John Boyer: And, when handling the event, there must be a way to access the information (perhaps the spec already has this).
Steven Pemberton: If I recall, it does mention the context information.
John Boyer: How does a handler get access?

Action 2009-06-17.1: Uli Lissé to send comment to XHTML2 to ask for XML Events 2 dispatch-event to be able to set context information, and also access context information in a handler if that's not currently possible.

* dispatch with delay question

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2009Jun/0006.html http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#action-dispatch

John Boyer: Can't we just say to Aaron Reed that events go away from the queue as the runtime elements are destroyed, such as form shutdown or repeat changes, or switch changes? So then if the event queue is empty, why do I care when I get rid of it? Any problems?
Leigh Klotz: Maybe this is really a memory management question.
John Boyer: Or what if there are events on the delayed event queue and the queue exists after the model-destruct event is still dispatched? Maybe he wants to know if the runtime elements still exist, which is a good but separate question.
John Boyer: If model-destruct happens and form controls exist and a delayed event happens, what is the harm in it running? It may not be able to get at anything, or do all its actions.
Leigh Klotz: Is model-destruct an information-only event?
John Boyer: It's notification; you can still do stuff during model-destruct. We have a test for that.
Leigh Klotz: That may be the answer; it's OK to run actions during model-destruct.
John Boyer: xform actions can still be executed (load, submission, model-based ones) when during capture or bubble of model-destruct. We don't test UI ones as the UI may already be gone in some implementations. We haven't been strict about when the UI disappears relative to model-destruct. I'm not sure we need to be more specific about the delayed event queue.
John Boyer: I think we didn't define it but it's reasonable to assume that no further events happen after model-destruct, but we didn't specify it. Does anyone think that's not a good enough answer? So our answer is we don't specify, but it's safe to assume that after model-destruct event dispatch is finished, no further delayed events occur.
Charlie Wiecha: [irc] +1

Action 2009-06-17.2: Leigh Klotz to respond to Aaron Reed http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2009Jun/0006.html saying we didn't define it but it's reasonable to assume that no further events happen after model-destruct. It's safe to assume that after model-destruct event dispatch is finished, no further delayed events occur.

* RNG schema

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2009Jun/0014.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jun/0022.html

Leigh Klotz: Markus Gylling has updated the XForms 1.1 schema for RNG. I'd like to publish it as RNC. We can publish RNG as well. Then I'd like to merge it with my integration of James Clark's nXML for XHTML 1.0 and use it to test our test suite. Markus has delivered an integration also with XHTML, but I'm not sure version.
John Boyer: Please check to make sure the switch/case local-global change has been made.
Leigh Klotz: OK.

* Writing a Charter Draft from the Future Goals Content (Rechartering)


John Boyer: We had backplane concepts, markup on the glass, aggregate applications, XForms for other contexts (ODF, non-XML web pages), extensibility (custom things, JSON), architecture/language features (incremental changes, larger patterns, dialog). Can we formulate a new charter?
Charlie Wiecha: I find something missing: a version of XForms that could become a module of HTML6? Perhaps that's the non-XHTML goal?
John Boyer: Yes, under the broader contexts.
Charlie Wiecha: Can we add XForms for HTML* there? An MVC version, different from XForms for HTML.
John Boyer: I'll add that now.
Charlie Wiecha: A variant with non-XML instance, non-XPath, etc. Modularity around expression language and instance.
Steven Pemberton: We've talked about instance and I don't see any problem that at all. Changing the selector language makes content no longer compatible.
Charlie Wiecha: Are there islands of compatibility with strong interest in islands but not across? We found CSS selectors in the Ample SDK. It would be a shame to lose the pattern over a subdialect of selector languages. People keep re-inventing XForms.

Nick van: XPath 1.0 and XPath 2.0 could be a start.
Charlie Wiecha: Yes, maybe it's a pluggability theme, as with Schema languages. An abstraction of basic pattern vs. particular technologies.

John Boyer: How closely do we need to connect these to XForms 1.2 and XForms 2.0? The "transitional" was from the last charter.
Charlie Wiecha: You mean map themes to deliverables?
John Boyer: The set selected for XForms 1.2 and 2.0 and then describe the selection criteria.
Charlie Wiecha: What's the time frame?
Steven Pemberton: Our charter ends at the end of this year so in the fall we should have something ready.
John Boyer: We need to write a draft charter.
Leigh Klotz: Does Steven do that?
Steven Pemberton: Perhaps.
John Boyer: Steven and I can bounce a draft around.

Action 2009-06-17.3: Steven Pemberton and John Boyer to work on draft Forms WG charter.

Erik Bruchez: Simplification for authors. We had confusion about XForms for HTML and Simplification for XHTML authors, and we agree simplification was worth doing. That's important to me. Syntactic simplification that makes it easier for authors to get started, including MIPs on controls. Is that markup on the glass?
John Boyer: That's integration of components and clients; I should move that elsewhere. Charlie can you fill out more?

Charlie Wiecha: Maybe lifecycle of nodeset bindings. We can discuss it at the Backplane.

Action 2009-06-17.4: Charlie Wiecha to lead Backplane XG discussion of potential additions for Forms WG Rechartering.

Charlie Wiecha: Is the HTML(k) modularity interesting? Snapping in modules unobtrusively of interest?
Leigh Klotz: I'm interested if it's going toward implementation.
Charlie Wiecha: Is it too far afield?
John Boyer: I don't think so. Data dependencies, for example, are challenging for a new expression language. Whether we use namespaces or not, XHTML2 has adopted our elements without our namespace. The syntactic means may require some spec work but won't be very difficult.

John Boyer: Back to Erik's MIPs point; is it its own theme?
Erik Bruchez: Regardless, it's worth mentioning.

John Boyer: How about defining XForms abstractly? Applying XForms to broader contexts?
Charlie Wiecha: Yes, or a separate theme. Or architectural advancement.
Leigh Klotz: Yes, it's architectural.

* F2F Agenda

John Boyer: Model driven switch, other technical topics.

* IRC Minutes


* Meeting Ends