Re: Draft minutes for 2007-09-26

Hi Leigh,

Great minutes!

The elided parts of the conversation between Charlie and me had to do with 
the fact that I did a note about trigger not being affected by MIPs like 
readonly at the same time I did similar comments for group and switch.

Even though I sent an email indicating these changes, having this info in 
the minutes would be a good second avenue for all WG members to find out 
about the changes.

So, in the elided part for me, just say "Targets of MIP events does not 
mean group or switch define special behavior for MIPs other than relevant. 
 I made that same comment for trigger so it would be clear that XForms 
processors do nothing special to a trigger based on MIPs like readonly. 
This addressed one of Charlie's actions, but I did it because I was in the 
neighborhood making the same comment for group and switch."

The following elided comment from Charlie was asking Nick to close the 
action, to which I responded that he should send an email to help Nick 
manage the changes.


John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab


"Leigh L. Klotz, Jr." <> 
Sent by:
09/26/2007 09:05 AM


Draft minutes for 2007-09-26

Please respond with corrections.
Please start new threads for comments.

W3C Forms teleconference September 26, 2007
* Present
Charlie Wiecha, IBM
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Mark Birbeck,
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Uli Lissť, DreamLabs
Keith Wells, IBM
Lars Opperman, Sun
Roger Perez, SATEC
Blake Jones, ViewPlus Technologies/DAISY
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
* Agenda 
Previous Minutes
XForms Conference at XML Conference
Attendance and good standing
Action Items
XForms 1.1. Schema
Insert and Delete examples
Forms Joint Task Force with HTML WG
Progress Report from WG members on action items
I18N Group's Response to IRI issue
Meeting Ends
* Previous Minutes IRC 
* XForms Conference at XML Conference 
John Boyer: We need an announcement page.
Leigh Klotz: What happened with the time?
John Boyer: We got 2:15 so we can do all talks. Did you get the email 
saying what needed to be done?
Leigh Klotz: Where?
John Boyer: I had in mind that there were three basic tasks, so you 
already have an action item to do this.
Leigh Klotz: 
Ah here.
John Boyer: So you and Steven ended up with the action to create the 
conference blurb
Leigh Klotz: Where do we publish it?
John Boyer: You send the it to me and I send it to Dave Steinhart.
Blake Jones: [joins]
* Attendance and good standing
John Boyer: We need better attendance at the teleconference and the F2F 
meetings. It's always less fun dealing with the faults people have found 
but we need one last push to the end. I see you're rallying on the list to 
get the work items done, but we've got some folks who aren't here on the 
phone and we wish were. It would be nice to have Susan, Joern, and Mark 
Seaborne, and Raman, and Sebastian, and also more participation at the 
F2F. It will be more fun, focused on the future versions of XForms. I'll 
start paying attention to the requirements for membership in good 
* Action Items
John Boyer: The other aspect is the action item list; there are actions on 
lots of folks. I just finished one of Charlie's.
Charlie Wiecha: I'll do one of yours. When is the publishing moratorium 
before the tech plenary?
John Boyer: I'm guessing a week before.
Nick van: [irc] We've had some negative replies too
John Boyer: Yes, we'll get to some of those in a minute, though I don't 
have the latest responses in today's. We have to deal with those comments. 
I need to go in on Friday morning to the HCG and say we're not going to 
make the end of September for CR. What do you think is reasonable for 1.1?
Charlie Wiecha: We don't have that many more open issues, just the 
negative replies.
John Boyer: There's a couple of issues from Erik, and the Schema issues; 
we need Erik. There's a fair number of action items from the F2F. For what 
it's worth, all the work we're doing is tightening up XForms 1.1 
substantially. We know there are the occasional faults, such as the model 
dispatching events to the UI instead of the UI dispatching its own events, 
but we've decided to defer those architectural issues. There's work left 
to do here, and a couple of open items left. If people can get their 
action items done, we can advance during the second or third week of 
Charlie Wiecha: I can get the Schema updates and I only have 4 or 5 others 
so it sounds doable.
John Boyer: If there are action items that aren't applicable to XForms 1.1 
you could do those later.
* XForms 1.1. Schema
Nick van: There are some tweaks to the actions, but the core form controls 
is already OK in the Schema. The action items and the data types need to 
be done. Should I do it with a union?
Leigh Klotz: It has to be a union to match string and integer; a pattern 
Nick van: OK then I can do it. I posted the schema in the emails.
John Boyer: What about doing the schema updates for the actions?
Charlie Wiecha: I volunteered for those.
John Boyer: Do you want Nick to finish the datatypes and then pass the 
file back to you.
Charlie Wiecha: That's probably best.
John Boyer: Then I'll get it back from Charlie and update the link in 
XForms 1.1 after I check it in.
Nick van: I'll send it tomorrow.
John Boyer: I appreciate your getting it done.
* Insert and Delete examples
Uli Lissť: I've sent this work.
Nick van: [irc] It's on the list too.
John Boyer: I'll do that. That set of example will fuel our discussion 
about XForms 1.2 streamlined actions.
Nick van: [irc] I also started on the examples.
* Forms Joint Task Force with HTML WG 
John Boyer: Mark, Nick, and Sebastian. Nick is busy on XForms 1.1. What do 
we propose for the charter for that? How about WF2 plus reasonable 
changes? Have you started on that?
Mark Birbeck: We need to work on where to start spending resources now 
that RDFa is nearly done.
Nick van: The same for me. I'll be on XForms 1.1 for the next couple of 
weeks at least.
John Boyer: We need to make sure the pieces are there to meet the charter 
requirements of WF2 plus reasonable changes to XForms 1.1 plus reasonable 
changes, and that's what we're calling XForms 1.2. Mark, could you pull 
together some kind of email to get onto that list?
Mark Birbeck: In relation to the charter?
John Boyer: Next week.
Action 2007-09-26.1: Mark Birbeck to prepare email for XForms 1.2 / WF2 
charter issues.
John Boyer: We need to start adding controls. I don't want to add them all 
into core but we should have a plan.
Leigh Klotz: XBL?
John Boyer: Or publish as notes. And we should CC the public forms list 
with the notes.
* Progress Report from WG members on action items
Leigh Klotz: On XForms 1.0 Basic Profile, we need PicoForms to sign off on 
the implementation report. There are some unanswered in from 20, 21, and 22 
August from David Landwehr. We need those resolved to get the 
implementation report done.
John Boyer: Keith can you handle those in the next week?
Keith Wells: I will do my best.
Action 2007-09-26.2: Keith Wells to read unanswered messages from 20, 21, and 22 
August from David Landwehr and answer, fix, or report to WG for 
Mark Birbeck: I'll get my list pruned by next week.
John Boyer: I have no action items left from 2006 and all are fairly 
Blake; I haven't done anything on the action from last May. I should be 
able to get that done in the next week or two. 
Leigh Klotz: What do I do about the one that says to file a last-call 
John Boyer: It's done.
Leigh Klotz: OK, I'll go send mail to the list about the ones that are 
John Boyer: Uli, I know you're working on the insert and delete examples.
John Boyer: Lars, your 2006 action item?
Lars Opperman: I never found the time to get it really going.
John Boyer: "Lars to document the XForms 1.0 processing model using a 
formal method as described at W3C Tech plenary, March 2006" should be at 
least 1.1 by now.
Lars Opperman: I always came to a point where I needed to build formal 
models for XML Events or DOM or XPath, which is a bit much.
John Boyer: Is this going to get done?
Lars Opperman: I don't think so.
John Boyer: So can you send a note saying it isn't going to get done?
Lars Opperman: Yes.
Charlie Wiecha: And I have one dependent on it, a state-chart view of 
that, so we can eliminate that too.
John Boyer: That's fair.
John Boyer: We need to ping Joern and Sebastian.
John Boyer: Nick?
Nick van: [irc] I will clean up my list too.
John Boyer: Keith, I know you've done some of them.
Keith Wells: The first is done (F2F) and I'm not sure where the others sit 
as they are old.
John Boyer: If you have an action item that needs to get off the list but 
you're not sure what to do, send email to the list.
Charlie Wiecha: my list...
John Boyer: Group and switch are targets of MIP events.
John Boyer: ...
Charlie Wiecha: ...
John Boyer: So send a note out with the items you need closed out.
Charlie Wiecha: I'll do that.
* I18N Group's Response to IRI issue 
John Boyer: Any experience with IRIs that are illegal URIs? Felix claims 
that IRIs are a subset of XLink, and XLink is linked by XML Schema 1.0. It 
may be referenced but not by anyURI. He's not asking us to reference IRI 
instead of anyURI but instead clarify whether support is required or 
whether it comes from the host language. I don't understand that. When we 
say a src or resource attribute is of type anyURI, why is that not clear 
that we require that anyURI can go there.
Leigh Klotz: I think the lexical space by process is a bit confusing and 
then we have new RFC's from IETF.
John Boyer: The new RFCs are referenced in XML Schema 1.1 and it says that 
it will use any updated RFC.
Leigh Klotz: I think that's what they want to have done in XML Schema 1.0 
but they didn't.
John Boyer: So we should reply that we use anyURI as defined in XML Schema 
1.0 SE and that that is normative.
Leigh Klotz: We can't really interpret XML Schema 1.0 in our last call 
comments; that task should be left to the Schema WG.
John Boyer: The question is whether XForms requires it normatively or 
whether it is from the host language. The issue is we have src attribute 
on instance now as defined by XForms normatively instead of being required 
of the host language.
Leigh Klotz: So it has a datatype.
John Boyer: Yes. We added it, but the data type for resource was omitted. 
So we added that.
Nick van: [irc] but that is no longer the the 
schema it is xsd:anyURI
John Boyer: But since the schema is no longer normative, we now say it in 
the spec.

Nick van: [irc] ok sorry
John Boyer: [irc] propose responding to i18n group by saying that yes we 
do now say xsd:anyURI in the normative part of the spec
John Boyer: Any objections?
Resolution 2007-09-26.1: Respond to i18n group by saying that yes we do 
now say xsd:anyURI in the normative part of the spec.
Action 2007-09-26.3: John Boyer to reply to by 
saying that yes we do now say xsd:anyURI in the normative part of the spec
* Meeting Ends
* IRC Log 

Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 16:38:55 UTC