Re: Draft minutes for 2007-10-03

Hi Leigh,
the Oregon phone number was for me--not sure why Zakim kept it.  BTW, 
you listed my last name incorrectly (s/b Jones).



Leigh L. Klotz, Jr. wrote:
> If your name is not listed and you phoned in, please let me know.
> One unidentified number from Oregon (US) was listed, perhaps a VOIP or 
> corporate trunk link?
> For corrections on the minutes, please reply to the list.
> To discuss the content, please start a new thread.
> Leigh.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   W3C Forms teleconference October 3, 2007
>     * <#topic0> Present
>     Keith Wells, IBM
>     Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer, DreamLabs
>     John Boyer, IBM (chair)
>     Charlie Wiecha, IBM
>     Mark Seaborne, PicoForms
>     Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
>     Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
>     Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
>     Rafael Benito, SATEC
>     Blake John, ViewPlus Technologies/DAISY
>     * <#topic1> Agenda
>     * Previous Minutes <#topic2>
>     * Progress on assembling XForms @ XML 2007 announcement? <#topic3>
>     * Fix for dateTime math <#topic4>
>     * Need topics of discussion for proposed meeting with Voice group
>       <#topic5>
>     * TPAC Deadline <#topic6>
>     * XForms Basic <#topic7>
>     * Task Force <#topic8>
>     * Progress closing action items? <#topic9>
>     * Meeting Ends <#topic10>
>     * IRC Minutes <#topic11>
>     * <#topic2> Previous minutes:
> IRC 
> supplement:
>     * <#topic3> Progress on assembling XForms @ XML 2007 announcement?
> John Boyer: Steven, can we get the abstract page ready for me to post 
> in the database that Dave Megginson sent us.
> Steven Pemberton: Leigh?
> Leigh Klotz: Yes, I have them in 
> John Boyer: I changed my abstract not to say "proposed".
> Leigh Klotz: Should we do that?
> John Boyer: I think so. Also contact and ask for photos.
> Action 2007-10-3.1: <#ACTION1> Leigh Klotz to edit abstracts and ask 
> authors for photos for XForms @ XML 2007.
> Action 2007-10-3.2: <#ACTION2> Steven Pemberton to post final 
> abstracts for XForms Day to XML 2007 database that Dave Megginson will 
> provide John Boyer.
>     * <#topic4> Fix for dateTime math
> John Boyer: Two fixes, to add optional date-time parameters to deal 
> with calculating "two hours from now" in the same way we calculate 
> "two days from now." 
> The boolean defaults to true (as in XForms 1.0) using UTC time, but 
> false makes the seconds-from-dateTime calculation in the current time 
> zone.
> Nick van: Adding the boolean makes seconds-from-dateTime incompatible 
> with XPath 2.0.
> John Boyer: What about seconds-to-dateTime?
> Nick van: That's not in XPath 2.0.
> John Boyer: That's a good point. The critical one is 
> seconds-to-dateTime. 
> Nick van: They have another way to do that.
> John Boyer: They have natural date math functionality. I found I 
> couldn't calculate "two hours from now" in a single calculate. If you 
> look at the examples, you can see I don't need the parameter on 
> seconds-from-dateTime.
> Steven Pemberton: [irc] Ugh
> John Boyer: Yes, Steven, XPath 2.0 will be better. But if you look in 
> the email, you'll see that without this parameter, you have to have 
> four binds and two or three local instance date variables to calculate 
> "two hours from now." At a minimum, if we can keep the optional 
> boolean parameter, days-to-date(days-from-date(local-date()) + 31) 
> will add 31 days.
> Leigh Klotz: So the issue is that now returns UTC?
> John Boyer: The issue is seconds-to-dateTime, which is not capable of 
> returning a local date. 
> You will see that seconds-to-dateTime produces a UTC dateTime.
> Steven Pemberton: You can say that again.
> John Boyer: [repeats]
> Steven Pemberton: No, I mean I agree with you entirely.
> Nick van: I agree that we need something to convert to local 
> timezones, but boolean is a is not such expected behavior. It 
> feels a bit of a hack. In fact what you really want is conversions 
> between timezones, as in XPath 2.0. Maybe it's a bit too much to ask. 
> You could have a convert timezone function to localtime.
> Leigh Klotz: It seems to me a function that would convert from UTC to 
> localtime would do the same thing but be discoverable.
> Nick van: Those are all in XPath 2.0.
> John Boyer: I agree that XPath 2.0 would be nicer and I could go for 
> seconds-to-localDateTime. If we do nothing, we have to do all this...
> Leigh Klotz: I think a separate function is better. It doesn't have to 
> be totally generic if XPath 2.0's, is; we can just do convert to 
> localtime.
> John Boyer: Yes, and in part because modifying seconds-from-dateTime 
> isn't a good idea.
> Nick van: [irc] 
> John Boyer: So we could just have adjust-dateTime-to-localtime.
> Nick van: I wanted to do this, but we are trying to add not too much 
> stuff that isn't in XPath 2.0.
> John Boyer: We're about to go to a call for implementations and this 
> looks easy to implement.
> Nick van: I can live with it.
> John Boyer: So the proposal is to add a adjust-dateTime-to-localtime 
> function.
> Leigh Klotz: The XPath 2.0 function has lots of cases to consider, 
> empty, no timezone etc.
> John Boyer: Yes, we'll have to have similar language.
> John Boyer: [irc] Proposal: add a convert-to-local-dateTime; Similar 
> language about edge cases as well as main case of converting from UTC 
> to local (if timezone info known by impl)
> Leigh Klotz: I'd say that it should handle all timezones in the date, 
> just as in seconds-from-dateTime.
> John Boyer: What if it isn't specified?
> Leigh Klotz: It says just append the timezone if the timezone is 
> unspecified.
> Nick van: I would say we can just use the XPath function without the 
> optional timezone arg.
> Leigh Klotz: It's called adjust-dateTime-to-timezone and they have it 
> defined without the timezone parameter as well.
> John Boyer: That would probably make Erik happy. Anybody unhappy with 
> that? So resolved.
> Resolution 2007-10-3.1: <#resolution1> We adopt 
> adjust-dateTime-to-timezone from 
> in the single-parameter version only.
> Action 2007-10-3.3: <#ACTION3> John Boyer to adopt 
> adjust-dateTime-to-timezone from 
> in the single-parameter version only for XForms 1.1.
>     * <#topic5> Need topics of discussion for proposed meeting with
>     Voice group
> John Boyer: What topics?
> Steven Pemberton: Harmonizing forms; they have their own HTML-like 
> forms. Also, harmonizing events, though possibly that is backplane.
> Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Is this for the all-group meeting?
> John Boyer: It came up at the F2F. We decided to request the meeting.
> Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: What's the reason for the request?
> Steven Pemberton: I'd like to discuss the HTML approach vs the XML 
> approach.
> John Boyer: Charlie?
> Steven Pemberton: What was in the minutes.
>     * <#topic6> TPAC Deadline
> Steven Pemberton: Today is the final deadline for the F2F hotel deadline.
> John Boyer: We really need you at the F2F meetings.
>     * <#topic7> XForms Basic
> Steven Pemberton: what is the status?
> Leigh Klotz: I'm waiting for the test suite to be updated to PicoForms 
> to test.
> Keith Wells: The changes should be in place. The v3 test suite was 
> updated two days ago. Can we get the updated link posted John?
> John Boyer: Yes.
> Steven Pemberton: Where is the link
> Keith Wells: In my email this morning.
> Action 2007-10-3.4: <#ACTION4> John Boyer to update v3 test suite link 
> from home page.
> John Boyer: Which test suite are they trying to create an 
> implementation report against?
> Steven Pemberton: We are using PicoForms for PR for XForms Basic. 
> Which edition are you using? Third edition?
> Mark Seaborne: I think we are using second.
> John Boyer: Leigh, have you seen the implementation report?
> Leigh Klotz: I've not seen it. I was preparing to ask for one.
> Steven Pemberton: I've seen a spreadsheet with reports of basic vs. not.
> Leigh Klotz: I don't care where it comes from, but I am not doing the 
> test of PicoForms myself. I just need to produce the document.
> Steven Pemberton: Mark Seaborne, can I ask you to contact Leigh and 
> get him what he needs?
> John Boyer: Which edition does it reference for PicoForms?
> Leigh Klotz: It could refer to any one we want I suppose. Whatever 
> PicoForms implements and tests is the version that we can advance to PR.
> John Boyer: Mark, can you let us know what version PicoForms will be 
> testing and get an implementation report to Leigh?
> Mark Seaborne: Sure.
> Action 2007-10-3.5: <#ACTION5> Mark Seaborne to let us know what 
> version PicoForms will be testing and get an implementation report for 
> XForms 1.0 Basic Profile to Leigh Klotz?
> John Boyer: Keith, can you send mail with links to the messages from 
> David Landwehr (see IRC) and report they are fixed?
> Keith Wells: I did that.
>     * <#topic8> Task Force
> Steven Pemberton: What is the status?
> Nick van: There is a proposal for the charter from Anne. It's quite 
> vague but it's a start. There is some movement on either a phone call 
> or a tech plenary meeting. It is moving again.
> Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Yes. I am not showing up but that is a red 
> herring, but I should be there. I introduced myself today. There's a 
> question about which wiki version.
> Steven Pemberton: I'll either use our existing wiki or use the new one 
> if it's available.
> Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I think Anne's just asking for web space 
> for storing documents, not necessarily a wiki; maybe he can just get 
> space from Chris Lilley <>.
> Nick van: Then only he can edit it?
> Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: No, it would be access public. But we need 
> to confirm.
> John Boyer: Once the space is set up, let us know and we'll link to it.
>     * <#topic9> Progress closing action items?
> John Boyer: Submission examples from Steven? Will you be able to give 
> us some examples?
> Steven Pemberton: Yes, I'll do that Friday.
> John Boyer: Uli reported that he is working on the insert/delete 
> examples. Hopefully some of you have had a chance to look at the first 
> four; they're more intelligible than our past ones.
> Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Did Uli do the past ones?
> John Boyer: He did a good job to start, but I asked for a couple of 
> other adjustments on the presentment to make the general pattern 
> obvious at the beginning.
> Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: I'll tell Uli.
> Nick van: For readonly examples, do we want them in the same format as 
> for insert? The data before and after will be the same.
> John Boyer: How many examples do you have?
> Nick van: I have ...
> John Boyer: We don't have to go as wild as we did on insert/delete, 
> because we had a last call comment to document common usage patterns, 
> and it feeds XForms 1.2 and turn them into new vocabulary to 
> streamline "append an element," "prepend an element," "duplicate," 
> etc. with an exact ... More like Uli's original format would be 
> sufficient.
> Nick van: I did the same as the other examples.
> John Boyer: If there's anything to be done other than wiring them in 
> we'll correspond.
> John Boyer: The Schema...Nick did a lot but there's one left.
> Charlie Wiecha: That's me, actions
> Leigh Klotz: What about the unnecessary toplevel elements?
> Nick van: New ones are local and old ones are left toplevel.
> John Boyer: We can put together a better schema as time goes on. Jan 
> created a version of the Schema that did move some elements away from 
> being toplevel, so maybe we could take a look at that. I think Mark 
> Birbeck is working on a highly-modularized Schema and there was some 
> concern that it was using features that some Schema engines wouldn't 
> support; I'm prepared to believe it but it seems fishy.
> Leigh Klotz: I think this is our last chance to say that label can't 
> go just anywhere, or put it in group.
> John Boyer: That's why the schema isn't normative any more; the main 
> body of the document doesn't say that. Also we said that the 
> submission children could be in any order.
> Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: The validation battle is lost.
> John Boyer: I don't think runtimes are using it, but it's helpful for 
> validation.
> Leigh Klotz: Really all we need out of it is the data types.
> Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Technically we could, but I think we shouldn't.
> Leigh Klotz: We could use an RNG Schema.
> Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Someone should write one.
> Leigh Klotz: In fact we have an RNG Schema. Micah wrote one and I'm an 
> editor of it.
> Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer: Let's talk about it.
> Leigh Klotz: Next time.
>     * <#topic10> Meeting Ends
>     * <#topic11> IRC Minutes

Blake Jones
Software Engineer
ViewPlus Technologies

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 16:38:44 UTC