W3C Forms teleconference March 9, 2011

* Present

Alain Couthuries, AgenceXML [IRC only]
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Philip Fennell, Marklogic
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
Erik Bruchez, Orbeon
Uli Lissé, DreamLabs
Kurt Cagle, XMLToday

* Agenda


* Previous Minutes

* US Daylight Savings Time

Steven Pemberton: Next week the calls in Europe will be an hour earlier, for two weeks.
Nick van: I won't be here next week.
Philip Fennell: March 16th and 23rd.

* HCG Meeting


Steven Pemberton: It's this Friday again.
Leigh Klotz: I'll join. Claudius Teodorescu has asked me about XBL and XSLT PI support in desktop browsers again.

* XForms WG Virtual meeting for Thursday March 10


Steven Pemberton: I believe we haven't done enough preparation. Should we find another day?
Kurt Cagle: We can do it after the HCG meeting
Steven Pemberton: The week of the June 6-8 is not possible. Dan MacCreary and Kurt are going to the Semantic conference. It's a holiday weekend for me.
Kurt Cagle: How about pushing it back a week?
Steven Pemberton: May 23rd but the reason for us coming has changed. The 13th is a holday.
Steven Pemberton: Nick, what's the latest you can make it?
Nick van: I can't to travel in June.
Steven Pemberton: THe TPAC is the week of the 16th in Bilbao, in Spain, and I'll be tehre all week.
Nick van: Then you're travelling two weeks in a row.
Steven Pemberton: Otherwise May 30th, 31st, and July 1st. But Dan and Kurt would travel twice.
Kurt Cagle: I'll be coming anyway.
Leigh Klotz: May 30th is Memorial Day.
Kurt Cagle: How about the days after the conference? I'd prefer that for travel anyway, before or after.
Nick van: When is the last day of the conference?
Steven Pemberton: June 5th-9th, but the next weekend is a European holiday weekend.
Nick van: That's not a big problem for me.
Steven Pemberton: It's somewhat of a problem for me.
Kurt Cagle: Memorial day weekend is not a big issue for me.
Steven Pemberton: But it won't work for Leigh.
Steven Pemberton: I'll make a questionnaire.

ACTION-1780 Steven Pemberton to make questionnaire for early-summer/late-spring F2F dates.

* Form Control Labels, label/@xml:lang, label/@for

Recent proposal for more appearance from Kurt Cagle http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2011Mar/0003.html

Kurt Cagle: If we are looking at an appearance attribute, we should consider what that means for full, minimal, etc. We currently don't have those.
Steven Pemberton: I don't see the message.
Leigh Klotz: It's called "Re: Draft"
Leigh Klotz: Alain and I have done something with an appearance attribute and an href so that in XSLTForms you can get the label be a link that displays the help.
Kurt Cagle: That's sweet.

Steven Pemberton: I see, it's kind of a pain to get block and inline labels.
Kurt Cagle: I'm not sure of the approach, but if we are talking about ancillary elements having appearance attributes, we should figure out what that means and give general guidance.
Steven Pemberton: What do you mean by "minimal could be associated with a default label"?
Kurt Cagle: A textbox with the label inside it in grey, which goes away.
Steven Pemberton: That's a rather nice way to express that pattern, and it's trick to do right. That's quite nice, actually. Having an easy way to do block and inline labis is nice. Did we have an action to write up what we agreed on?

Steven Pemberton: Kurt, would you do the write up?
Kurt Cagle: Sure.

ACTION-1781 Kurt Cagle to write up the results of control labels and appearance as a wiki entry to use as a basis for discussion at virtual F2F day.

Steven Pemberton:

* HCG Meeting (redux)


Steven Pemberton: They've published the minutes as a public link. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hypertext-cg/2011JanMar/0007.html
Steven Pemberton: Art Barstow, who is chair of WebApps, will be there.
Kurt Cagle: Do we have a plan for what the group wants to say?

Steven Pemberton: I think we agree with what Leigh propounded: a superset version with namespaces which adds namespaces and can "compile down" to WebBL. Leigh?
Leigh Klotz: I think we should ask Erik.
Erik Bruchez: Yes, sound good.
Steven Pemberton: And two documents, or two parts?
Erik Bruchez: I assume that whoever is producing the spec would produce the second version.
Steven Pemberton: No, this works around that.
Erik Bruchez: I thought Ian Hixson removing namespaces was an experiment. Who is the editor?
Steven Pemberton: He's been editor all along.
Erik Bruchez: Then whoever is working on that part, the core, is not going to be from this group, and it won't have namespaces. The only thing we can do is find areas that don't allow extensions and provide feedback. We can't decide that there's going to be a full spec done by someone else.
Leigh Klotz: The W3C team members rejected the idea of optional features because of "patent policy" issues. So the plan was to have a second profile spec which includes the first spec and adds namespaces.
Steven Pemberton: I've never heard about this patent policy issue before; I'll have to go ask some experts.
Kurt Cagle: It did sound like one of a series of red herrings.
Erik Bruchez: I don't think we can have much influence on the people who are doing the work. If the WebBL people make specs, we cannot control how that's going to be done. I think we shouldn't waste too much time on it, and just provide initial feedback.
Leigh Klotz: I think the current proposal is to take "WebBL" (though it won't be called that) and define a new spec called "XBL" (though it won't be called that) whichs says "Take WebBL and add namespace syntax to it."
Erik Bruchez: That sounds OK.
Steven Pemberton: We can call it whatever we want.
Kurt Cagle: I'd like to caution: right now when you talk about HTML5 and XHTML5, the underlying message I get is that it's just HTML5 written in XML. At the same time, what we're seeing here is that there are differences (from namespaces, from content, namespace and schematic bindings with data types for entities within XHTML5 that aren't in HTML5). These things aren't covered in the HTML5 specification. It may be that one thing we have to do is to ask who is responsible who is responsible for the XML implementation and how we handle issues where there are pre-existing technologies that are bound to XHTML that are irrelevant to HTML5? XBL is a perfect example; there's more to it than just namespace bindings. There are other aspects.
Steven Pemberton: That's a good argument to put forth on Friday; it's not enough just to say that XHTML5 is HTML5 in XML clothing, becuase it does imply a lot more. If XBL is going to support both of them, then by definition it needs to support ...
Kurt Cagle: So we need to ask HCG who the stakeholders are of XHTML5 and at what point are there going to be divergences?
Steven Pemberton: OK, done?
Steven Pemberton: The call will be the same as last time, an hour earlier than this call on Friday.



Kurt Cagle: One question I hear is whether AVT should migrate into XForms itself: can you have {} within an XForms attribute should as a value, or where we have fixed bindings such as resource attribute. Or should we strictly limit AVT to underlying host language, and keep it out of XForms itself? Have we resolved that?
Erik Bruchez: There was no decision. Value isn't a good example because it's an XPath expression.
Steven Pemberton: It's a good example because we need to ask.
Erik Bruchez: It's not allowed.
Kurt Cagle: I agree, I mean more like the fixed attributes.
Erik Bruchez: Where do we get AVTs from? There are attributes in XForms that are static.
Steven Pemberton: An historical mistake.
Erik Bruchez: Look at HTML4, there are static attributes but they're not really static because of script. An XForms implementation could do the same, but it's not declarative. So we needed a solution in our implementation that was simple and we used AVT from XSLT. It doesn't require JavaScript or XQuery scripting.
Erik Bruchez: In XForms 1.1 we did an incomplete effort to control such fixed attributes such as load, and we documented those in the spec with nested elements, but there's no general rule. It's not very satisfying, and the syntax is absolutely horrible. AVT expresses this way, way shorter. We should be trying to use shorter attribute names as well.
Leigh Klotz: And the second use, for host languages?
Erik Bruchez: Yes, Kurt was asking about on XForms elements, but yes we support them on HTML, SVG, etc. That gets transmitted into an XForms extension element called "control" with an idref to the host element. It is a lightweight syntax to modify attributes in the document.
Steven Pemberton: I like the idea of the generality. I fear the complication of the user having to remember whether to put squiggly brackets or not. Maybe there's no way out of it because of our history and you need to know that anyway.
Nick van: There are a limited set of those that are XPath: nodeset, ref. Are there others?
Erik Bruchez: It should be less to write about in the spec. "For every attribute that is not an XPath expression, you can modify it dynamically..." Erik you can say "may/must" support nested elements. It could be one paragraph. It's clearly a new thing for form authors, but the upshot is that it's more flexible.
Leigh Klotz: You just said it was one paragraph to write; is that an action?
Leigh Klotz: In addition to nodeset, ref, and XPath values (such as MIPs) we shouldn't allow ID.
Erik Bruchez: Yes, it gets messy if you allow that.
Leigh Klotz: What about idref, such as submit/@submission or toggle/@case?
Erik Bruchez: For the actions there we support the AVTs.
Leigh Klotz: So we disallow it on ID but not on IDREF.
Erik Bruchez: Yes, setfocus, send, submit etc. would work. There is a need for dynamism there.
Philip Fennell: There's one problem on IDREF: you can't validate as IDREF anymore.
Erik Bruchez: You wouldn't. You can't determine it until runtime. So having {} attributes that are runtime poses concrete problems if you need to have strong validation. It shouldn't be a showstopper.
Kurt Cagle: Are you validating against the live instance?
Leigh Klotz: Just define the schema as IDREF or at least one matched pair of {}'s.
Erik Bruchez: It's hard to validate IDREF or {}'s. You can write a rule that matches and multiple {}'s and nested XPath expressions, but the regexp language in XSD is fairly weak. IDEs would be expected to do a better job.
Kurt Cagle: You don't know at design time, but once you have the instance you can validate.
Leigh Klotz: We need a weak version of design-time validation, so that we don't break editors at least. I think the IDREF|{} works around it.
Philip Fennell: So we drop the bind IDREF validation issues for NVDL?
Leigh Klotz: I've never been able to get IDREF validation to work in RelaxNG either. I think it's a design problem with IDREF.
Kurt Cagle: Is this an oXygen problem?
Philip Fennell: No, the same problem appears in XProc.
Erik Bruchez: We can't limit ourselves to a schema becuase IDEs can do more.
Leigh Klotz: I think we can publish a schema that works and allows IDREF or AVT.
Nick van: What about fixed enumerations?
Leigh Klotz: You write appearance={"full" | "minimal" | "compact" | AVT } and AVT = text { pattern = ".*{.*}.*" } and then refine the definition of AVT over time (as multiple XPath expressions) if you want. But this at least makes it work at design time.
Steven Pemberton: Erik would you be willing to write this up?
Erik Bruchez: I think I already have an action to own AVT discussion.
Kurt Cagle: I wouldn't take one paragraph as a hard limit.

ACTION-1782 Erik Bruchez to write one paragraph description of proposed spec text for AVT.

* IRC Minutes


* Meeting Ends