Blake Jones, ViewPlus/DAISY
Charlie Wiecha, IBM
Erik Bruchez, Orbeon
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes, left early)
Mark Birbeck, x-port.net
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Rafael Benito, SATEC
Roger Pérez, SATEC
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer, DreamLabs
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
Uli Lissé
Keith Wells, IBM
Steven Pemberton: Did anything
happen?
John Boyer: Any news this week?
Mark Birbeck: Did you discuss it at
the F2F? We had a call two weeks ago.
Charlie Wiecha: I heard The focus was
going to be on general directions, not on formal spec
writing.
Mark Birbeck: We talked about what
consistent architecture meant; we wanted to make sure an MVC
approach wasn't ruled out. The markup itself isn't as much an
issue, we had previously agreed. So that's a reasonable success. So
we want to recast it using syntax close to HTML5, to give a natural
progression from HTML4, to HTML5 extensions, through to XForms,
which I think is achievable.
Charlie Wiecha: Do you think scope
creep with explicit MVC architectures in HTML5 might be a
problem?
Mark Birbeck: I hadn't thought about
that. But anything can happen.
Charlie Wiecha: ...
Mark Birbeck: As far as I'm concerned
that's the big issue, not the syntax.
Charlie Wiecha: So when you cross from
a monolithic design to MVC that's what triggers XForms?
Mark Birbeck: As long as we can create
a notional model based on, say, HTML forms...you could easily
recast HTML forms as an XForms model; there's no reason why our
phases of serialization and collecting data and submitting data,
why you can re-write HTML forms with its limited attributes in this
architecture. SO imagine you start with HTML and a form element and
the limitations, then write it again as if it were XForms. HTML
says visit a control, ask if the control is disabled, and pluck out
its value. So we can re-write this as a model behind the scene that
gives the same results. So if there is a disabled attribute it
doesn't matter. We've obviously discussed UI-based attributes as
well. So essentially it's an MVC model.
Charlie Wiecha: My concern wouldn't
happen for some time anyway. We can get 1.2 WD out in the
meantime.
Mark Birbeck: I've just come of the
XHTML2 call, and the backplane (progress there) would have the same
model.
John Boyer: We'll talk more about 1.2
in upcoming calls.
John Boyer: I sent a message to
Martin Düerst and said that we'd re-labeled this appendix as
informative; several people already thought it was informative.
Does anyone have an issue with the inputmode material being marked
informative. No? I think now that it's informative we can move
forward.
Steven Pemberton: Without the new text
that he's going to provide.
John Boyer: When he does provide it we
can add it.
Steven Pemberton: Yes, after CR. It's
an implementation comment: there are other scripts, but it doesn't
change the meaning of inputmode. I wish we had agreement for an
algorithm to extract the values. That would be the ideal. It only
changes the UI in a tiny way, not XForms. We should allow anybody
to add values and just say where they come from.
John Boyer: Should we re-stress this
point? It might make his job easier.
Action 2007-11-14.1: Steven Pemberton to contact Martin Düerst and reiterate advantages to algorithmic determination of inputmode script.
John Boyer: Here are our
results.
John Boyer: Steven, do you have any
comments on Issue 69?
Steven Pemberton: Not yet, but I may
flip the bit at the end.
John Boyer: I also recorded
disagreement with one of Michael Kay's issues and I recorded that.
One issue is the use of the random function; he doesn't like
functions that have side-effects beyond the DOM. I explained the
XForms mental model that XPaths are run in a batch anyway;
unfortunately, even while that batch is running, events such as
setvalue/insert/delete can mutate the DOM, so a lot of the issues
around side effects are not so severe, as we already have this
problem.
John Boyer: The other is 147,
seconds-from-dateTime; apparently it has a different semantic in
XPath 2.0 (same name). We resolved to keep the same function
because we've long had it; when we go to XPath 2.0, we will address
whatever subtle semantic differences there are. I presented the
basic use cases and ask if any of those would be affected by the
differences, now that we made the change to say we don't support
leap seconds. It's a long-standing function we can't throw away at
this point.
John Boyer: The fourth and final
disagree we have is from David Landwehr; he doesn't agree that you
can set readonly on a calculated node to false. He did indicate he
was not raising a formal objection.
Steven Pemberton: So that's a live
with?
John Boyer: In the set of possible
positions, there's a difference between disagree and formal
objection. We have no formal objections.
Steven Pemberton: He's saying, "I hear
you, go ahead?"
John Boyer: He doesn't agree with it
but he can live with it.
Nick van: [irc] "I accept the
resolution because I give up."
Steven Pemberton: It is regrettable
that one of our implementers disagrees with the position.
John Boyer: So we should report it as
disagreement. It will come up on the call and we'll have to explain
it, that there were numerous other implementers who felt he other
way.
John Boyer: There are 16 of 17
deferred comments missing, two accept, and one modify and
accept.
John Boyer: Ah, Shane says there are
125 issues marked as implemented. They are missing because they are
not in the state=implemented (deferred).. I could flip their states
to implemented.
Steven Pemberton: Let's do this
offline with Shane.
John Boyer: We now have a last-call
comments implemented document;
John Boyer: Here is the link to the
specification we would like to Transition to CR.
John Boyer: [irc] XForms 1.1 editor's
draft of CR-ready specification:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-all-20071106.html
Steven Pemberton: http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/xforms11-lc-doc-20071114.html
John Boyer: I got a few errors from
Keith Wells in the examples; they are not substantive.
Leigh Klotz: I sent a list of typos
and sentence problems during the F2F.
John Boyer: Please send it to the
list.
Nick van: [irc] we have a lot of No
Response issues
Steven Pemberton: [irc]
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2007/xforms11-lc-doc-20071114.html
is now further up-to-date John, issue 45 is marked "editorial" as
is 69
John Boyer: Any objections to
transition to CR? Are these IRC comments objections?
Steven Pemberton: No.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: No
objections.
John Boyer: Let us record a
resolution.
Resolution 2007-11-14.1: We request transition CR of XForms 1.1 with http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2007/xforms11-lc-doc-20071114.html
Nick van: [irc] Are we going to
clean up the no-response states?
John Boyer: A no-response is a green
light, but WG members can clean up their responses. Anybody want to
peruse their issues and make sure they are all at an appropriate
state other than no response.
Steven Pemberton: [irc] I will.
John Boyer: Erik has. I have.
Nick?
Nick van: I don't have issues. I
checked the Michael Kay ones.
John Boyer: The ones he didn't respond
to we assume it didn't bother him. The table looks normal to
me.
Steven Pemberton: It's getting that
way. There might be a remark on the number of no responses, but
it's the red things they look for.
John Boyer: The other major thing
we need for transition here is the expected implementations. Chris Lilley said
that our status section said there were no preliminary
implementation reports, and suggested we put up information on our
Wiki with the implementers we list and a paragraph listing the
things already implemented from XForms 1.1. It doesn't have to be a
test suite. The web services with SOAP, the modifications for
insert and delete, etc. That would be more indicative of why W3C
should advance the recommendation.
Steven Pemberton: Would that be
Mark?
John Boyer: Any implementers with a
brief paragraph.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: We are
trying it; it's the top of my agenda. I cannot promise.
Leigh Klotz: You just need to have a
paragraph saying what's done now, not a full implementation.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer:
Great!
Nick van: [irc] I've done all the new
XPath Functions
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Yes, Nick
can do that.
Keith Wells: [irc] I can get a list of
Mozilla xforms 1.1 supported features (or ones in
development)
John Boyer: Can we get this tomorrow?
That would help me put the paragraph together and put it in the
status section of the document?
Mark Birbeck: Kind of hard to do that
by tomorrow. What kind of issues? if and while?
John Boyer: Yes, no details.
Mark Birbeck: I can do that.
John Boyer: We'll have a strong
presentation.
Nick van: Is just a list of features
good?
John Boyer: Yes.
Nick van: I can do it this
evening.
Rafael Benito: [irc] you can count on
some features in DataMovil 3.0
John Boyer: Any concerns about the transition period? No.
Steven Pemberton: The date we have
pencilled in Amsterdam is not possible. I need to move it a little
later in May.
John Boyer: When?
Steven Pemberton: It depends on the
week; we've cut loose from XHTML2. May 12th is the last day that's
a holiday and that's a Monday. So May 14-16 at the earliest,
possibly the 13th. We're currently pencilled in for May 5-7. It
would have to be at least a week later. Otherwise I don't mind,
though we have to watch out for the Web conference.
John Boyer: I think it's very early
this year.
Charlie Wiecha: I think that works
better. Tue-Thu.
Steven Pemberton: That would be the
13-15 May.
Mark Birbeck: It's better to have a
Saturday; starting Monday is better.
John Boyer: So May 14-16. Return on
Saturday.
Mark Birbeck: That doesn't get you an
overnight Saturday.
John Boyer: So it would be better May
19.
Mark Birbeck: For me, a European
flight, doesn't make a difference.
Charlie Wiecha: I hate burning the
weekend for travel.
John Boyer: Then May 13-15 would be
better.
Charlie Wiecha: I thought Saturday was
less important now.
Mark Birbeck: From here to Canada it
was.
John Boyer: We'll pick it up again
next week. Let us know if May 13-15 is a problem.
John Boyer: How do we get more
people to come? Why did XHTML2 go to three meetings?
Steven Pemberton: To make it
cheaper.
John Boyer: More telecons?
Steven Pemberton: No.
John Boyer: Would more telecons
substitute for a F2F?
Steven Pemberton: SVG has an day-long
IRC to discuss things and do action items. There's a timezone issue
but there's also travel. I'd rather sit up all night at home than
around the world. If other people would commit, then video plus
teleconferences or IRC, late in the night, could work.
Mark Birbeck: That implies that
there's still a physical F2F. If we were to do that on the bridge,
that quality of conversation is better than what we have for remote
conferences. I just work from home then.
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I'd rather
meet somewhere other than the US because it takes two hours through
immigration; it's not a money issue.
Mark Birbeck: Or two F2F, one in
Europe and one in America, at the same time, video linked.
Steven Pemberton: That's an
interesting approach. Then the video link is easier. The video link
with you on the screen worked, Mark.
Erik Bruchez: Two meetings is hard in
different time zones, Europe half the night.
Leigh Klotz: I have to leave.