Charlie Wiecha, IBM
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Roger Pérez, SATEC
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
Keith Wells, IBM
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Leigh Klotz: I sent Kenneth
Sklander's test results to John.
John Boyer: The HTML doesn't look like
a report; there's no red or green.
Leigh Klotz: It's the old format. The
spreadsheet lists pass, fail, dispute, or inapplicable. We're not
going to go back and revise the old test suite for XForms 1.0 that
this was against, and we're not likely to re-run it.
John Boyer: No call on the 24th or
31st. Anyone else want to nominate th 17th?
Keith Wells: I won't be there on the
17th.
John Boyer: I assume January 7th is
OK. Does that seem reasonable to have a call then?
Keith Wells: I think so.
Charlie Wiecha: Yes.
John Boyer: Anyone else away on
December 17th?
Charlie Wiecha: We should poll by
email for that one.
Resolution 2008-12-3.1: No call December 24th or December 31st.
John Boyer: Email sent. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Dec/0008.html
John Boyer: What will we do on the
calls without drafts of modules? SHould we have working
calls?
Charlie Wiecha: I can spend some time
on the data islands and we can discuss that on the 17th. I'll need
some help so we can have it a working session.
John Boyer: Do you want to have that
on the 10th as well?
John Boyer: Uli is out the rest of
December, and he's currently attached to a number of specs.
Charlie Wiecha: You take a lot of care
with your formal spec-writing process and I'm happy to take a crack
at the functionality but I'll need help on that side.
John Boyer: Do we need a presentation
on SpecXML?
Charlie Wiecha: It's not that level;
it's the way to use references and notes and citations. It's no the
syntax; it's more the usage.
John Boyer: I hesitate to cancel the
calls because we won't do work outside then.
John Boyer: The upcoming one is at
Google. Then the next after that is either in Amsterdam in June or
in London arranged with Mark and Charlie. Steven will be unable to
travel then. He says he's happy to host it in Amsterdam, but did
you have your hopes set on doing it in London.
Charlie Wiecha: That's fine with me
too, but I wonder about the travel restrictions? I haven't heard
anything yet.
John Boyer: Amsterdam or London will
be the same issue through. Hopefully earlier in the year we'll be
able to avoid the same situation as this year.
John Boyer: We'll go forward with
Amsterdam in June and see what happens.
John Boyer: How's the report
going?
Keith Wells: The HTML page for FF2 and
FF3 is on the list.
John Boyer: public-forms?
Keith Wells: www-forms
Leigh Klotz: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2008Nov/0007.html
John Boyer: So this is the new
implementation report. I'll publish this in the 2008 space,
right?
Keith Wells: Yes.
Action 2008-12-3.1: John Boyer to publish http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2008Nov/0007.html in 2008 space.
John Boyer: How did it do? Number
of tests passed?
Keith Wells: It's summarized by
chapter. I used XSLT to transpose the XML to a tabular format. It
would have been nicer to keep it as XForms.
John Boyer: Thank you very much.
Keith Wells: There's also a living
implementation report on Ubiquity XForms site for IE7; we're also
looking at test results for Firefox 3. It's a living document and
follows the codebase and tests. Those should also be able to be
used as implementation reports.
John Boyer: Absolutely. We don't have
as many tests passed as I'd like and a larger number that could
pass with a few technical blocking factors. We need other
implementation reports so we can advance XForms 1.1.
Nick van: [joins]
John Boyer: Some of the forms
require viewing the submit button. Under firefox the submission
won't work because of the cross-domain submission.
Keith Wells: That's a good question. A
lot of these tests are XML-instance related. Leigh's echo service
is invaluable in showing the instance.
Leigh Klotz: Isn't it allowing it? I
put the feature in.
Keith Wells: The plug-in bypasses its.
If Ubiquity is a plug-in...
Leigh Klotz: For plus-ins?
Keith Wells: Firefox 3 supports XHR
cross-domain submission only for plugins or signed jars.
John Boyer: That's weird.
John Boyer: Mark Birbeck submitted a bug report for XForms 1.1. He said he didn't understand why the data serialization was not included in the event. I explained to him that at the time at least, the working group felt that if someone was going to overload serialization with their own data, serializing the data seemed like extra unnecessary work. Mark's point was that having the serialization available was useful as you could embellish the existing serialization. It makes certain programmatic extensions easier. One is that we could re-do our tests and write a message that captures the xforms-submit serialize. The submission subseuqently failing is irrelevant.
Leigh Klotz: Or I can just fetch
the pages by URL and serve them up. It won't help with the local
disk which will need upload.
John Boyer: That's fairly interesting.
There's the thing they test and then there's the 5 or 6 other
things that have to work.
Keith Wells: That's not necessarily a
bad thing. It's been that way for a long time, since 1.0.
John Boyer: I guess in the submission
case it's proving difficult. We don't have the problem in a
practical deployment.
Keith Wells: There's a way to bypass
the security through Firefox and that's what Mark and I do for
submit. But it's a temporary code change. It's not a burning issue
right now.
John Boyer: This is relevant to
what we're saying. I'd like to get some opinions. So what is
provided is used in lieu of the data submission that is normally
constructed. If you look further down, Mark's original issue is
that the submission body should contain the real data; whether
someone has modified it or not is not important. If they have
captured it, they can use the data as a starting point for
constructing their own alternate serialization. The explanation of
why is that in a lot of cases, someone wants a radically different
serialization gives. They can ask for the instance document and
create a serialization anyway. His examples is addresstype=home and
they could replace it with sub-elements. They're going to have to
parse the serialization anyway. So it doesn't give you much.
Leigh Klotz: It includes relevance
pruning.
John Boyer: True. We don't expose IDL
for that but a reasonable implementation of an XForms processor
would allow you to find those MIPs out anyway. But you're right, we
don't expose that in the processor. It just seems to be a nice
feature, but at the end of the day, perhaps in some future version
we could put in a switch to say whether you want the data
serialization to be created for submit-serialize or a
serialize-with-relevance function to be available. It seemed more
like an additional feature. I'm not getting a lot of
consensus.
Nick van: [irc] is it for performance
that we don't want to always provide it?
Charlie Wiecha: If we were doing it
from scratch I'd do it the way Mark says, but there is the momentum
of it being that way already. It might be appropriate to do it in
the modules.
John Boyer: IDL for
serialiation-with-pruning.
Leigh Klotz: Not just pruning; what if
we add other features to serialiation?
Charlie Wiecha: Right, the whole
serialization.
John Boyer: Or we could generically
have a style-like attribute with parameters saying what you
want.
Charlie Wiecha: And Nick's IRC
question?
John Boyer: Yes, since there is an
alternative serialization.
Nick van: If it's mostly for
performance then detect when someone needs it and then
serialize.
John Boyer: How?
Nick van: By analyzing the XPath
expressions.
John Boyer: Which ones?
Nick van: You can only access it
inside the document. So if you don't use it anywhere in the
document then you are safe not to serialize it. If you want a
smarter solution it may also be possible.
Charlie Wiecha: [IRC] TMM -- Too Much
Magic
John Boyer: It would be more direct to
have a switch.
Leigh Klotz: If there's no way to tell
whether it's produced then I don't see it.
Charlie Wiecha: You're only looking at
XPath, not scripting.
Nick van: You can process the scripts.
I don't like asking the author. You have to remember to switch it
off or on.
John Boyer: If we made the change, it
would seem to be better to say that it has it, not that we say how
to optimize its production.
Nick van: It's the same as
events.
Charlie Wiecha: That's easier to
determine with event registrations.
John Boyer: I can't see people parsing
the script code. Once you get to the point where you dispatch the
event...
Nick van: Can you do it in the
implementation of the event section? So if nobody asks for it, it's
not available, and a smart implementation can generate it when
someone reads it. Then you don't have to parse your XPath
expressions.
Leigh Klotz: So I think we should
remove the performance issue from the discussion of whether we want
to do this. We can hear from implementors later if they can't
optimize it.
John Boyer: So that node can be set to
empty string or the initial data serialization.
Nick van: So why not provide it if the
reason is only performance.
John Boyer: We're a year past
candidate rec. It's a last-call comment. Right now we're having
trouble getting implementation reports. It's one more cool thing we
can do. It's useful for testing but what else? Are we solving a big
problem here?
Nick van: Or maybe we can change it
in a future version. Do we now check to see the value is
empty?
John Boyer: Good question. Maybe
someone adds text and we see text. It makes sense to see what we're
testing. It looks like the test doesn't test for empty-string in
the beginning. We'd have to add a test for it. It would be
11.3.c.
Charlie Wiecha: My vote is for IDL in
a module.
John Boyer: How about you,
Leigh?
Leigh Klotz: Ask Paul to provide (1)
use case and (2) implementation proof. We can't deal with your
concern of it being too late.
Keith Wells: I vote for not doing
it.
Charlie Wiecha: We know they can do
it, so why decide later?
Leigh Klotz: The test case doesn't
test it not being there so let's let it slide if they want to
implement it. They if they do it and perhaps Firefox does it, we
can put it in the next spec. That's how things ought to work anyway
-- we standardize implementations, rather than the other way
around.
John Boyer: We need a public response for this from Paul Butcher.
analyst needed
Leigh Klotz: We can't read this on the
call...
John Boyer: This will take half an
hour at least.
Leigh Klotz: I'll take a look at
it.
Action 2008-12-3.2: Leigh Klotz to review http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Dec/0003.html
John Boyer: Until we get implementation reports finishing this merge into the spec isn't high prioity but it's bubbling to the top.
Keith Wells: This problem has been
here since 1.0. I find it worrisome.
Leigh Klotz: This issue appears to be
in the PicoForms test report as well.
Keith Wells: I've received feedback
from Aaron and Merle.
John Boyer: The first test I opened
had a problem. The others are good...
Keith Wells: I'll fix the test.
John Boyer: It's supposed to test bind
overriding nodeset. The test form seems different. The outcome it
describes would only be possible by having the bind override the
ref on the select1 itself.
Keith Wells: That's messed up. And I
can take out the submission.
Action 2008-12-3.3: Keith Wells to update test http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Oct/0038.html to fix binding and remove submission if necessary.
John Boyer: We still need the shortname request. Is Steven Pemberton here? I'll put it in the HCG request.
John Boyer: This sounds like the
thing we heard before, of the common patterns.
Leigh Klotz: I found it: it's an
XPointer scheme for innards of XSD: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xmlschema-ref-20081117/#key-scd
Syntactically, the first part is a URI without a fragment identifier, and the second part is an XPointer fragment identifier. An absolute schema component designator therefore is a URI reference. For example: http://example.org/schemas/po.xsd#xscd(/type::purchaseOrderType)
Leigh Klotz: It seems like an
XPointer scheme for indexing into an XSD document at a slightly
higher level than the XML elements that comprise the
document.
John Boyer: Can you ask them if it's
relevant to XForms?
Leigh Klotz: Sure.
Action 2008-12-3.4: Leigh Klotz to ask WG if http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xmlschema-ref-20081117/ is relevant to XForms.