Charlie Wiecha, IBM
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Paul Butcher, x-port.net
Keith Wells, IBM
Kenneth Sklander, Picoforms
Erik Bruchez, Orbeon
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Doug Scheppers, W3C
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Roger Pérez, SATEC
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Jul/0039.html
John Boyer: Any info? Steven's not
here.
Leigh Klotz: There are some people
I've been trying to get involved in this, but not enough notice now
I worry.
John Boyer: Perhaps Roland
Merrick.
Leigh Klotz: I got tasked with
writing up the simple informative changes, but those turn out not
to be sufficient.
John Boyer: What are the issues?
Leigh Klotz: Serialization mechanism
and possible errors for multiple headers with the same name,
particularly with HTTP but generically; replace vs. append of
header value; HTTP Accept header in case of
submission/@replace=all vs
submission/@replace=instance and whether the user
agent gets to decide or the header element gets to decide.
John Boyer: Are there other
implementations?
Leigh Klotz: Orbeon, I think.
John Boyer: Erik?
Erik Bruchez: So far none of our users
have hit that problem. It seemed that it was reasonable to explain
better what happens with multiple headers with the same name.
John Boyer: It sounds like there was a
test that Mozilla was failing? Once that has modified, for that
specific test, would it be possible to see if you pass it?
Erik Bruchez: I think that would be
doable.
Steven Pemberton: [joins] At the moment, the dates are at risk.
John Boyer: Does anyone feel this
might impact our modularization?
Steven Pemberton: I personally feel we
should seriously review it.
Kenneth Sklander: [irc] i can review
it, as we are implementing xsd 1.1
Action 2008-08-6.1: Kenneth Sklander to review XSD 1.1 last call review deadline 12 Sept http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Jun/0059.html by next Wednesday
Latest http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms-tf/2008Jun/0000.html
John Boyer: The HTML WG says the
charter for the task force has expired without anyone producing
anything, but I'm not sure how there's a date on the charter. Does
anybody have any more information on why people believe the charter
has expired for the task force?
Steven Pemberton: We can extend it if
there is a need to produce documents.
John Boyer: We are both working on
forms simplification. It seems like the stuff we're doing is very
big compared to the size of the group.
Charlie Wiecha: I'm interested in
doing implementation of the simplified syntax in Ubiquity, but
can't work on the task force.
John Boyer: If all we have is a spec
and nothing else to show, then that's not...
Charlie Wiecha: It would be hard to
reconnect later on. We're interested in Dojo and YUI and the
simplified syntax model in Ubiquity.
John Boyer: So I can push on the
question in the HCG about why the charter for the task force is
less than December 2009, the groups charters.
Charlie Wiecha: Our interest in
implementations is part of our activity.
John Boyer: We have a technical
plenary coming up in October; maybe we could have a demo of a
portion of it.
Charlie Wiecha: I would think
so.
John Boyer: We can get together then
and show it working. We might need to have changes to XForms
1.2.
Action 2008-08-6.2: John Boyer to report to HCG that we are continuing to work on the joint task force issues, and in particular are doing implementation work to validate some of the concepts, and are tentatively planning to meet at the tech plenary.
Changes to make module less dependent on other modules
John Boyer: The first issue is what
to call it. It's not "The" XPath functions module. Other XForms
modules will add functions to it.
Nick van: [irc] The standard XForms
XPath Functions module, The base XForms XPath Functions
module
Leigh Klotz: How are they added?
John Boyer: By prose.
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.2/modules/instance/bindingAttributes/index-all.html#expr-li
Leigh Klotz: So it's not added to the
XPath functions module, but added to the conglomerate.
John Boyer: Yes. I misspoke. It's
added to the function library.
Leigh Klotz: I'm with Nick: core, or
base.
Paul Butcher: These are all data, but
no instance functions.
Leigh Klotz: There's other stuff like
dates.
John Boyer: Yes, Paul, good point. The
instance stuff is all removed. The only place instance caused a
problem was the current function. I had to merge the two instances
into one chunk of XML data.
Leigh Klotz: So channelling Mark, I'd
say we can take an extreme position and break this up into a date
and time functions spec, a math function spec, move
is-card-number() out to where the card type is defined, put if()
and choose() in one module, etc.
John Boyer: That's a lot of
specs.
Paul Butcher: XPath 2.0 has the date
functions.
Leigh Klotz: Another cut is to keep
the ones that have XPath 2.0 equivalents out of the same document
as ones that don't, so when we move to XPath 2.0 we can simply not
update those documents.
Charlie Wiecha: Whatever we do about
splitting it up or not, we shouldn't call it The XForms XPath
Library.
John Boyer: Where do we put these?
Subdirectories in TR space? Can it be TR/xpath-functions?
Steven Pemberton: We can get
directories; the spec is at the top level and we can have any
number of directories under that.
John Boyer: So we could have
subdirectories for modules.
Charlie Wiecha: Is that a mechanism
from the standpoint of the process? Is that one or N; that creates
different URLs but does it require different last-call
processes?
Leigh Klotz: We used to have the split
spec as normative.
Steven Pemberton: The process starts
from a short-name which points to the version name and you can have
directories under this.
John Boyer: So do we resolve to create
several specs out of this?
Leigh Klotz: I don't think we've
resolved to do it yet.
Nick van: Are we ready for dozens of
specs? I know Mark is pushing it.
John Boyer: Well, this module might be
a good test case. Its parts can be used separately.
Leigh Klotz: We're not the first to do
this as Mark says.
John Boyer: We're taking the XForms
spec and producing 30-40 specs out of it.
Leigh Klotz: Well, the monolithic spec
isn't working for us, so I'm with Mark.
John Boyer: OK. Why can't the
is-card-number be introduced separately. I guess it's useful. So it
seems like there's an action item to propose a breakdown and
resolve to do that or not.
Leigh Klotz: If we're going to do
that, that's the process.
Action 2008-08-6.3: Leigh Klotz to propose a breakdown of http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.2/modules/instance/xpathFunctions/ into multiple modules today
John Boyer: I didn't find it yet
useful to refer to XHTML modularization. Steven?
Steven Pemberton: That's fine by me.
Assuming we're planning on using the same techniques we should say
we're using the ones defined there.
John Boyer: Does it say anything about
XPath functions?
Steven Pemberton: Oh, just for this
module. No XML Schema right? Then we don't need to use it
here.
John Boyer: Binding and other modules
do, though. Could you propose a sentence that we can use?
Action 2008-08-6.4: Steven Pemberton to propose spec-ready sentence to import XHTML modularization for binding and other documents.
Nick van: Do we import these or do
we say that the XPath library adds them?
John Boyer: From the last F2F, I got
that it's the consuming library that imports the functions. The
binding module adds context() but it doesn't mention the others.
The binding attributes module has a section
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.2/modules/instance/bindingAttributes/index-all.html#expr-lib
that says that other modules of the consuming profile may add more
modules to the library. So we will have thirty-odd specs out there
for people to adopt our technology; however, if someone wants to do
XForms, there is an XForms rec that will compose all of them pulled
together.
Nick van: So we are defining XPath
functions. Can another module add those functions to script?
John Boyer: That's a separate
question. I've been focused on modularizing what we have and
producing those. It's got strings, nodesets, etc.
Nick van: You can do that in other
languages as well.
John Boyer: We inherit a lot by
default, though, such as parameter type conversion. we could look
at how hard it would be to write them generically over XPath-ese
and JavaScript, but we haven't taken that approach yet.
Leigh Klotz: That's what I was trying
to do with the IDL, but we ran into just that problem, that we'd
have to write XPath in IDL, which was too hard. Channelling Mark
again, he could take our XPath functions recs and implement them in
JavaScript without our involvement.
John Boyer: We could say that you're
allowed to do that.
Leigh Klotz: I don't see the point;
people don't need our permission to recast our specs.
John Boyer: I added editorial notes in each place where we found text that belonged in a to-be-written module. I've seen Nick has done the same thing. In one place you sent email to the WG about idref in the bind module. So, Nick, can you put those editorial notes in?
John Boyer: I removed "instance"
and "XForms Markup" where I could. The context function was hard. I
kept the example of the setvalue element here:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.2/modules/instance/bindingAttributes/index-all.html#fn-context
I got rid of as much as I could. In the example, I explained
setvalue and binding. I explained the relevant bits about the
element. In the actions module there are triggers and DOMActivates
and things that aren't defined in the module; the shortest path is
to say "suppose you had an element called trigger with the
following properties."
Nick van: [irc] OK, I will clean it
up.
John Boyer: Some of these just
define attribute groups. Every module that needs these concepts
will refer to this spec anyway. This spec is heavy on definitions
and knowledge of XPath.
Charlie Wiecha: It doesn't say
anything about behavior or events. It's just attributes.
John Boyer: UI bindings, model
bindings, and action temporary bindings are all different, but they
use ref, nodeset, and context. With context we talk about the
nesting of elements. There are some editorial to-do's for stuff
that needs to go in other modules. In section 6 there's a glossary
of terms. There are more terms than were in XForms 1.1.
John Boyer: And for
acknowledgements, what do we do?
Steven Pemberton: Leave it empty with
a note saying we'll update it when we get to rec.
John Boyer: OK, we'll comment it out
for now and figure out a list when we publish.
Steven Pemberton: Typically we add the
people in the WG at time of rec and then acknowledge people who did
special work.
John Boyer: Meanwhile we need to ping
some people.
John Boyer: Kenneth, is there any
chance of moving forward testing on this?
Kenneth Sklander: [irc] We sent an
impl. report 18 months ago.
Leigh Klotz: If the chair will provide
me the report, I will pair it with the text.
Kenneth Sklander: [irc] do we need
additional things? I will forward it to you, leigh