W3C Forms teleconference July 9, 2009

* Present

Erik Bruchez, Orbeon
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Nic van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Roger Pérez, SATEC
Doug Scheppers, W3C
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
Keith Wells, IBM

* Agenda


* Previous minutes

* Administration

John Boyer: Nick, thank you for agreeing to chair the next two weeks.

* XForms 1.1

Steven Pemberton: I hope to finish this tomorrow.
John Boyer: I'll get the content in, and the SOAP encoding and charset when I get back from vacation. Then these are all the agreed changes, modulo implementation report progress. Any progress?

Erik Bruchez: No progress, unfortunately.
Keith Wells: I have a report on FF2 and FF3, with a few changes still to make. Where do I send it?
John Boyer: The forms list is a good start; we'll put it somewhere more permanent, perhaps a 2008 directory of reference documents.
Keith Wells: We can use XForms to display the results as well.
John Boyer: It would be nice to have a comparison of implementations and a summary column green/red for each feature to show if we have enough.

* XML Base PER response


Steven Pemberton: I am hoping for some help on the response from Norm Walsh. He agreed to the character clarification. Some people said this change reflected reality in the RFC2396 to RFC3986. We thought the characters in the URI had changed so you had to rev the language if it uses the new base. He says the changes are editorial, as the range is entirely what's allowed in XML. So, I think I am confused. I believe the RFC reference change is real, but he says they only updated the references section. If we agree I suppose we should just ask what the RFC change means.
John Boyer: He does say some characters need to be escaped.
Steven Pemberton: That's the normative change, the semantic change that you need to convert the characters to old to send them on the wire.
John Boyer: Has the Schema validation rule changed?
Leigh Klotz: Aren't there some weasel-words in there?
John Boyer: It's allowed to have stuff that has to be escaped in a real URI. I think it says RFC2396 escaping, and then check to see if it's legal according to RFC2396. So now XML base can provide a URI base that I don't know how to process by RFC2396.
John Boyer: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/datatypes.html#anyURI So my processor will take the results of the (possibly relative) URI and process it. It's conceivable it's expecting a certain bag of characters. The bag of characters is changing with XML Base. The processor for the resolved URIs has to understand that a different set of characters is available. Even my own host language URIs have to understand an updated set of characters relative to a set of definitions from XML Schema part 2. Even if I don't, the upgrade to base causes problems for the lower level processor, so the two need to be updated at the same time (otherwise only XML base can use the extra characters and the URI resolver would choke at some times).
Steven Pemberton: I'll try to write a reply that so we can agree on the issue.

Action 2009-07-9.1: Steven Pemberton to reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Jul/0011.html to seek agreement on whether RFC2396/RFC3986 change is an issue.

John Boyer: What is the next point about URIs?
Steven Pemberton: For href, the type is anyURI, but in RDFa, rel specifies a thing where the algorithm produces a URI, so rel can be seen as a URI; so, is it OK from the XML Base point of view to apply that? Do they allow that? We already use QNames in XForms and I think we've agreed that should change to CURIEs in the future; so does XML Base permit you to use things that aren't strictly-speaking URIs but can be appropriate?
John Boyer: I thought perhaps they would be absolute URIs, but I guess CURIEs can somehow be relative.
Steven Pemberton: The namespace spec doesn't require the prefix to be absolute.
John Boyer: So does this mean that XML Base processing applies to namespace processing?
Leigh Klotz: I thought namespaces were URNs instead of URIs?
John Boyer: The namespace spec says "relative URI references is deprecated" http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/ So switching from QNames to CURIEs would introduce the relative URI problem to our documents. I know there was a schism and people were using relative URIs in namespaces to point to Schemas, but they stopped that. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/

Steven Pemberton: Do people agree with me that the RFC change is a change in the syntax of the URI reference?
Leigh Klotz: I think the sequence of allowed characters in the XML serialization is the same, but the meaning is now richer, which puts an onus on processors. with "The range of characters allowed in xml:base attributes has always been what are allowed in LEIRI in XML," Norm may be focused on the document serialization and not on the responsibilities of the processors operating on the document.
Steven Pemberton: Good comment.

* XSD 1.1 last call review deadline 12 Sept.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Jun/0059.html http://www.w3.org/News/2008#item113

Steven Pemberton: We are hoping Mark Birbeck will look into this for XHTML2, but someone else should from here.
John Boyer: Looking at the data types would be good; we had some last-call comments on XForms 1.1 that said we were doing things similar to XML Schema 1.1 so we should put effort into finding those.

* Forms Task Force

Keith Wells: No response yet.
John Boyer: Maybe we should write off to the HTML WG and ask if anyone wants to continue the conversation on this document.

Action 2009-07-9.2: Steven Pemberton and John Boyer to look at HTML WG charter for schedule of delivery of last-call for Forms component of HTML and determine if escalation to HCG is necessary for better collaboration.

* Module bundling into fewer specs

John Boyer: Nick can discuss in your upcoming calls when you are chair.
Leigh Klotz: And Nick made a lot of progress on the RNG schema for XForms 1.1.
John Boyer: We're working on a lot of specs here, and we're concerned about there being too many. Some other modularization specs tend to offer more than one module per spec. So, does it sound reasonable to pursue, as the first public WD draft model, to produce one spec with several modules?
Steven Pemberton: I'm personally completely happy with one spec with lots of modules. I think Mark would like to see separate specifications on the grounds that that has been successful for RDFa, but personally I'm happy with one or a handful of specs. Any other comments?
Leigh Klotz: Perhaps it can be modularized here, published as one document, and then profiled with multiple simple documents in the Backplane IG.
John Boyer: Yes, that sounds good. Charlie's demo last week showed a submission module and the instance element (no manipulators setvalue/insert/delete).
John Boyer: So we need to discuss this further with Mark. Do you need to say something in the conformance section that says you can adopt any of these?
John Boyer: What's an example of a modular spec with a conformance section?
Steven Pemberton: XHTML modularization.
John Boyer: So the wind is blowing in the direction of bundling into the specs that are reflective of the toplevel bullet points in the Future Features Wiki and the sub-bullets are modules.

Erik Bruchez: [leaves]

* Draft Instance Data Module

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Jul/0001.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Jul/0008.html

John Boyer: Charlie has pulled together the things we've talked about being in the instance module. Mark expressed an opinion that the instance element could be in a module by itself. But what does it really offer? It gives an id attribute to a blob of XML data, and possibly src and resource.
Leigh Klotz: And then instance function idl.
John Boyer: That's a good point but it's not clear to me yet...oh I see.
Leigh Klotz: That gives you the formalism for getting the data out.
John Boyer: Submission could also have access which refers to instances without XPath.
Leigh Klotz: It's the IDL function, not the XPath function.
John Boyer: Or an IDL module might add it.
Leigh Klotz: The IDL is generic so it's not its own spec, like a JavaScript binding.
John Boyer: We could have IDL defined for setvalue, insert, delete, etc. A subject for further discussion.

* IRC Log


* Meeting Ends