W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms-tf@w3.org > October 2007

minutes 31 october 2007 joint forms task force call

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:10:13 +0000
To: public-forms-tf@w3.org
Message-Id: <20071031180809.M61572@hicom.net>


minutes from today's initial forms joint task force telecon are available 


an IRC log of the call is also available at:


text of the minutes follows -- any errors, corrections, comments should be
logged by replying to this post

thank you to all who attended

                                   - DRAFT -

                 Joint Forms/HTML WG Forms Task Force Meeting

31 Oct 2007

   See also: IRC log


          Nick_van_den_Bleeken, markbirbeck, Gregory_Rosmaita, anne,
          +1.408.996.aaaa, mjs




     * Topics
         1. 2 minutes -- introductions and interests (hot button issues,
         2. discuss scoping (as prelude to next item)
         3. discuss AVK's charter proposal (latest draft):
         4. charter review period
         5. identify regular meeting time (every other week?)
     * Summary of Action Items

   <scribe> Meeting: Joint Forms Task Force

   <scribe> scribenick: oedipus

   <scribe> scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita

   <scribe> ScribeNick: oedipus

2 minutes -- introductions and interests (hot button issues, too)

discuss scoping (as prelude to next item)

   Mark: what do people want out of task force? what would like acheived
   ... personally, think neeed to find bridge between solutions (XForms
   and Web Forms 2.0) -- discussing in Forms WG ways of making transition
   easiest possible; keen to see if can meet in the middle -- some of the
   things Web Forms 2.0 extensions could they be part of what XForms is
   working on? if developer moving from HTML forms to HTML5 forms to
   XForms 2, would like to be a smoothe process

   AVK: interested in hearing what kind of input XForms WG has on WF2
   (Web Forms 2.0)
   ... expressed outcomes in charter proposal; transition path between
   the two -- diffferences, mostly scripting; don't make too complex

   GJR: i would like the task force to consider dave raggett's XForms
   Transitional draft

   AVK: out of charter scope -- discussing technical spec; we are
   defining an architecture not a technical spec

   Mark: not start with XForms Transitional -- conceptual ideas in
   conflict; dave's not around to support it
   ... think would be interesting to have proper discussion on XForms 2
   extension; assess how this bridging might be achieved from WF2.0 to

   AVK: not sure XForms transitional compatible

   Mark: background: number of things in XForms that are syntaxically
   unecessary; if don't express instance of XML data, get data created
   for you; could not require expression of model -- not a new language,
   but how do we tune XForms so retains its conceptual model, but easier
   to use syntaxically and could be used by relative novice
   ... need to work out: if have input control bound to firstname and
   another to secondname -- want to concatonate in XForms XPath
   concatonation -- how to bridge the 2? not by making them look the same
   -- different languages in model -- javascript in HTML and XPath in
   XForms; 2 ways of achieving -- how to get from one to the other
   ... meta-information will help guide us to ascertain where we are
   coming from; not religious about this -- javascript so commoonly used
   to make widgets, don't always need to create an XPath -- 2 ways of
   doing things

   Nick: nothing against javascript or XPath -- if it is the best
   solution, should be able to use it

   AVK: script mark HTTP-Header and meta elements -- don't know if
   supported in gecko

   Mark: don't know how widely supported; would require us to say XPath
   is a scripting language
   ... type of issue we need to step through to achieve goal
   ... many good candidates for attributes; support for multiple
   languages in browser

   AVK: single platform easy to add a lot of features -- if 4 platforms
   need to support different methods, it will be a waste

   Mark: certain attributes contain script can be used as way to take
   javascript from WF2 and XPath from XForms

discuss AVK's charter proposal (latest draft):

   AVK: should be concentrating on guidelines

   Mark: trying to ensure that no particular architecture is ruled out by
   what we do -- if just have input control or 2 inputs and a
   concatonated output, nothing requires MVC architecture; don't want to
   rule one way or another -- implement as implementor chooses -- if
   someone introduces attribute, will not break

   AVK: mapping simple HTML forms DOM structure to XForms

   Mark: no need for conversion --

   AVK: define mapping between WF2 and XForms -- WF2 makes additional
   parts of forms easier to use -- doesn't add much as far as a model or
   output --

   Mark: in XForms model, if say XML node called date, anywhere put input
   control associated with date, can obtain it; some argue shouldn't put
   data on input control; don't think breaks MVC model; XForms needs
   ability to set view level properties -- one control read-only one not
   read-only -- if set forms control, all will be read-only; need way to
   distinguish which are which -- build on HTML4 and WF2 rather than be
   in conflict with them
   ... doesn't matter that don't shave MVC model -- can conceptually act
   as if there is one -- there is a model, can't see -- WF2 applies to
   "view level" XForms attributes apply to model

   AVK: seems like a model constraint; datatypes allow you to do that

   Mark: constraints are connected to model; WF2 if have 2 controls
   connected to same data can have separate types, right?

   AVK: not sure

   Mark: is it like HTML control array?

   AVK: yes, built on top of HTML

   Mark: read-only -- to get in XForms have to say some data is
   read-only, input control bound to that becomes read-only; programmers
   start with UI, add more controls and data, shouldn't rule out use of

   AVK: guidelines - conversion from HTML to XForms model -- not about
   WF2 (supplemental to HTML forms) -- how do HTML forms used everywhere
   map to XForms

   Mark: believe you can map them

   AVK: not saying can't but that is the challange

   Mark: HTML forms pretty easy; people get worked up over WF2 and XForms
   are similarities

   AVK: read-only and disabled are also part of HTML forms -- not new;
   WF2 allows read-only on slightly more controls and disable on select
   -- not new feature

   Mark: want to begin with new features even if only half-a-feature;
   harmonize work being done; if simply harmonize with HTML miss out on
   what is being done in other areas

   GJR: from SS post to public-forms-tf -- agree on architectural
   consistency but must define

   AVK: for some may be clear mapping between XForms and WF2 or single
   interface -- not sure

   Mark: conceptually, see them based on same model
   ... if is model underneath HTML form, could still be described by MVC
   -- data entered into form, processed, serialized and delivered; HTML
   onSubmit queries all controls and submits that; could collect in a
   model, even if not explicit; allows further extension of forms

   <mjs> my apologies gentlemen, had a traffic disaster

   <mjs> can someone remind me of the call-in number?

   hope you are ok

   Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, passcode 36767# ("FORMS#")

   <mjs> not an accident, just bad traffic on the way to work

charter review period

   MJS: personal view: as stands, architectural consistency is vague, but
   is work of TF in executing charter to find what it means; different
   possible interpretations need to be investigated and which make sense
   for what

identify regular meeting time (every other week?)

   AVK: can do by email: charter review period 2 weeks from now -- 3
   weeks publish as official after taking to groups

   RESOLUTION: internal charter review period will end 3 weeks from
   today, after which will be submitted to respective WGs

   AVK: produce some guidelines -- 23 november 2007 deadline -- ok?

   MJS: occasional meetings good -- only as needed

   GJR: when meet impasse or can't achieve consensus on list then can
   call teleconference to discuss

   scribe's note: general agreement

   [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 18:10:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:06 UTC