Action items

Mark, could you please respond if you find any of the below statements to 
be unacceptable.  I would like for Nick to be able to take action on this 
message later this week, so please check over this before the telecon.

I believe that the following action items should be removed from Mark B's 
list:


Mark Birbeck to reply to email 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Apr/0064.html] 
Done by Mark


Action 2006 08 16.2 
Done by several WG members


Action 2005-09-08.18 
Stale. This action called for a rewrite of the submission spec.  Much 
rewriting of the submission spec has been done by yours truly since then, 
so it is quite unclear even what this action means.  We do have a possible 
XForms future feature to break off submission into a separate module that 
could be published independently, but that should be  a net new action 
item created in the future by some group resolution to do so in XForms 2.0 
or 1.2 at this point.

Action 2005-04-14.1 
This was an action to write up erratum E12 for XForms 1.0 SE to say that 
UI events could go to any bound node, not just Form Controls.
This is essentially a stale action.  Put another way, this is essentailly 
the "custom controls" feature of XForms 2.0, so this action should be 
voided. 


http://www.w3.org/2004/12/16-xforms-irc#T15-57-06 
Write up proposal for more complex use cases for message.  This is over 3 
years old and therefore stale.  It would be better to write up more 
complex use cases, and then decide whether message is appropriate or 
whether another construct is more appropriate.  For example, separating 
the act of initiating  a dialog from the UI definition of a dialog would 
seem to be preferrable.  Using a word like dialog is also preferrable 
since it implies two-way communication with an end-user, whereas the 
semantic of 'message' is output only.

http://www.w3.org/2004/12/02-xforms-irc#T15-46-00 
Mark to find precedents for changing focus when the control with the focus 
becomes hidden.  This is 3 years stale.  I also think the semantic is 
obvious.  If the focused control hidden, control goes to the closest 
ancestor container that is relevant, which then decides what descendant 
control to focus based on build order, relevance and repeat indexes.  Any 
behavior other than that should be programmed by the XForms author using a 
setfocus action in the same sequence that caused the relevance change of 
the focused control.

http://www.w3.org/2004/12/02-xforms-irc#T15-27-35 
Write strawman draft of hasFeature for 1.1.  Three years stale, 1.1 is 
done, and this issue is a possible future feature and should be handled as 
such with a new action item once the working group does *some* work to 
design it and put it into a future version.

Action 2004-11-12.5 
Inter-model communications is another possible future feature for XForms 
2.0.  Actually, Charlie is doing some work on how to achieve this sort of 
effect, and it is not a quick and dirty action item.  It needs design 
before action items are assigned.  No wonder this is three years old!

Action 2004-09-10.4 
Remove restriction to homogeneous collection.  This was done by several WG 
members for XForms 1.1

Action 2004-08-19.4 
Write proposal for change event.  The WG has more or less agreed that more 
work needs to be done on UI events for XForms 2.0.  This action item is a 
flimsy way to represent that need, which is why it is over 3 years old. It 
is stale and should be removed; better action items will result from the 
WG's efforts to architect a better solution.

Cheers,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Staff Member
Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
Blog RSS feed: 
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw