W3C Forms teleconference May 16, 2007

* Present

Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer, DreamLabs (chair)
Erik Bruchez, Orbeon
John Boyer IBM (IRC Only)
Joern Turner, Dreamlabs
Charlie Wiecha, IBM
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Rafael Benito, SATEC
Roger Perez, SATEC
Susan Borgrink, Progeny
Ulrich von Lissé, DreamLabs

* Agenda


* Previous Minutes

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0049.html IRC supplement: http://www.w3.org/2007/05/09-forms-minutes.html

* Coming calls

May 23 Steven to chair telecon

* Next FtF - Hosted by IBM June 13 to 15, 2007

Tweaks to form needed http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0022.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0013.html

* Backplane


Charlie Wiecha: We are waiting for the language for the interest groups from the patent policy group. Ian Jacobs had received some draft language but it would be another couple of weeks. We think it will happen.
Joern Turner: Ulrich is interested in Backplane as well.
Charlie Wiecha: I'll ping Ian again.

Action 2007-05-16.1: Charlie Wiecha to contact Ian Jacobs and get status on Backplane interest group patent policy.

* exf iterate feature request


Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: This seems like just an oversight.
Charlie Wiecha: It may be that we discussed this in Raleigh and made an explicit decision.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I didn't check the minutes.
Charlie Wiecha: I remember some discussion about this being a more minimal approach.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: OK, let's refresh that. We should revisit this issue, possibly at the F2F.
Charlie Wiecha: Let's dig into it
Nick van: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2005/09/f2f/2005Sept08#topic17
Charlie Wiecha: It does look like we decided to do the whole thing.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Yes, http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2005/09/f2f/2005Sept08#topic17
Nick van: I think we talked about it a bit later and decided to drop iterate because there were some problems with deleted items in the nodeset but I can't recall when we talked about it.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: This is an interesting question; this sounds like it might become an erratum if we don't.
Leigh Klotz: John has some questions on IRC.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] John, do you think we should include it today for 1.1?
John Boyer: [IRC] No
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] John, so future stuff?
John Boyer: [IRC] Yes. It creates a nodeset that has to persist during run of actions that can include delete. This is where the problem comes in, and nobody wanted to write the spec for it, so it got dumped into 1.2. We just didn't put it in future features.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] OK.

Action 2007-05-16.2: John Boyer to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007May/0007.html that it is a future feature and why it was dropped.

* Folder selection feature request


Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: This reminds me of some very early requirements from Larry Masinter.
Leigh Klotz: Wouldn't you need some extensions already to even make use of it?
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: How generic could this be? You could locally browse, specify filesystem..
Leigh Klotz: What can you do with it? You need an extension to do this anyway. We'd need more use cases.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Can you respond, keep the ball rolling?

Action 2007-05-16.3: Leigh Klotz to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007May/0003.html with questions about how generic the use case is, request for more, point out that it requires an extension.

* Submit-on-enter


Leigh Klotz: I thought we already decided at the F2F that DOMActivate would set the value.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I will pick someone from the action item list. Erik, would you take on this submit-on-enter issue?

Action 2007-05-16.4: Erik to read and understand http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Feb/0084.html , contact Aaron Reed and Mark Birbeck, and report back to group.

* One event handler, multiple events


Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Yes, I think XML Events are quite heavy. Personally I agree.
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] This is just a syntactic suggestion.
Leigh Klotz: This is for the XML Events people, right?
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: We could ask them to do it. That's the XHTML2 WG?
Nick van: [IRC] It's probably something to suggest to whomever is in charge of XML Events. Shane and MarkB.
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] I can send the suggest to whomever is in charge.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Does anybody object to this?
Erik Bruchez: We can't just change XML events.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: We can ask if they will incorporate it in the next version or in an erratum.
Erik Bruchez: OK. Does anybody object?
Charlie Wiecha: I'd like to raise the abstraction level and post the requirement to re-use the handler. There may be other ways to do it, and let them discuss us.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: That's a good idea.
Charlie Wiecha: The space-separated list of events doesn't allow you to control bubble and capture.
Nick van: Can't you already do this in XML Events with multiple listeners and one handler? I find <listener event="event-type-1" handler="#handler"/> <listener event="event-type-2" handler="#handler"/>
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Yes. I think we should still Erik to approach Shane McCarron and Mark Birbeck.

Action 2007-05-16.5: Erik Bruchez to suggest requirement to share handlers via lighterweight syntax than ev:listener to Shane McCarron and Mark Birbeck.

* Complex type validation issue

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0057.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0051.html

Action 2007-05-16.6: Leigh Klotz to read and report back on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0057.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0057.html

* XForms Schema: mustUnderstand and extension


Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: This is a Jan issue. Didn't we kick mustUnderstand altogether?
Charlie Wiecha: I think so.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I think we addressed this already. The question is where is extension permitted? Is it clear by now? Anybody?

* Issue with Test Case 3.4.1


Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I wonder if we have addressed this? Did "up to March 14" mean already covered? This is another Jan issue.

* Comments on if function from Michael Kay


Leigh Klotz: I forwarded this from an email discussion from Michael Kaye and it got dropped.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: So do we process it now?
Leigh Klotz: It's a bit late.
John Boyer: [IRC] It came as a last-call issue.
Leigh Klotz: So let's discuss it at the F2F and have Erik Bruchez present his solution.
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] Unfortunately I won't be at the F2F.
Leigh Klotz: Can you call in for that?
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] Yup

Resolution 2007-05-16.1: We discuss http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2006Dec/0062.html at the F2F and encourage Erik Bruchez to call in.

* Need rigorous definition of "Acceptable XPath Expression"


Erik Bruchez: [IRC] the term "acceptable" is just not working here in the first place I think
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I agree. What's the rationale for "acceptable?" Maybe like we restricted repeat. Does anybody have strong feelings?
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] I have also submitted more comments regarding bindings in another email I think that may entail a rework of the whole area
John Boyer: [IRC] The section starts "Dynamic Dependencies" then says some are not acceptable, then it goes on to say that in particular there are problems with model binding expressions
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] I mean the whole section about bindings
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] Erik, what do you suggest?
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] Well, following recent discussions on bindings with John in public-forms, I think we need to do some work there
John Boyer: It's certainly true that 7.4 eval context needed a full rewrite, so some surgery on 7.5 is conceivable.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] what do u suggest, striking acceptable and/or reworking the sections?
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] the thing is, any expression that returns a node-set is acceptable
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Sure.
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] it's just some are dynamic bindings, some are not
John Boyer: [IRC] In the particular case of the word acceptable it didn't grab me as being difficult to understand, so I haven't gone after a rewrite.
John Boyer: [IRC] By acceptable we mean that they won't work correctly
Erik Bruchez: [IRC]but I don't understand it ;-)
Erik Bruchez: [IRC]not by the standard meaning of "acceptable"
John Boyer: [IRC] It's unacceptable that things don't work as you would expect
Erik Bruchez: [IRC]then dynamic bindings are prohibited?
John Boyer: [IRC] In a perfect union of xpath and xforms, ignoring algorithmic complexities
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] either way we need a rewrite and to use a different term
John Boyer: [IRC] they would work properly, but they don't.
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] we could use a different word than acceptable as long as someone proposes one
John Boyer: [IRC] that issue alone didn't inspire me to go off and rewrite the section though
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] more than the word, we need to actually explain what we mean
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: OK, moving on to next agenda item.

* Problems with whitespace, value and copy, select and select1, and the XPath data model which is related to Question about select1 and what is selected


Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Uli and Joern, do you have any insight? Erik?
Ulrich von: In Chiba, copy isn't implemented yet.
John Boyer: [IRC] Ah yes, the inability to create dependencies problem...
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: We take the first one.
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] We take the first one too.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: That matches with what David is suggesting.
Ulrich von: I think so.

Nick van: [IRC] didn't we talk about it at Palo Alto?
John Boyer: [IRC] we do too.
John Boyer: [IRC] yes we did
Nick van: [IRC] can't find the minutes
John Boyer: [IRC] it was acrimonious as I recall
Nick van: [IRC] does anybody have a link to the minutes of Palo Alto?
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] John, all take the first one, I think we can (re-)agree on this
Nick van: [IRC] s/have a link/has a link/
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] all means all implementations on the call today
John Boyer: [IRC] that's because you don't have Mark and Raman there
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] David is asking:
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: [IRC] I believe the specification should state that for closed selections the first matching item must be the one selected
Erik Bruchez: here is the link to my message to www-forms-editor regarding section 7
Erik Bruchez: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007May/0006.html
John Boyer: [IRC] They argued strongly that a "select1" should select multiple items if they match the value
John Boyer: [IRC] because you're selecting one value. I thought it should select1 item
Nick van: [IRC] I want to read the minutes first
John Boyer: [IRC] but there are just enough wrong words in the spec that it can be read either way
Erik Bruchez: [IRC] ah, visually select multiple

Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: OK, so we'll leave this open.
Leigh Klotz: [IRC] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2007JanMar/0169.html

* Meeting Ends

* IRC Minutes