Charlie Wiecha, IBM
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Roger Perez, SATEC
Doug Scheppers, W3C
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
Uli Lissé, DreamLabs
Keith Wells, IBM
Paul Butcher, x-port.net
John Boyer: Let's talk about modules.
Nick van: I can't use much of the
text there in the data binding modules because it constantly refers
to other modules.
John Boyer: Which module?
Nick van: The bind module. The compute
expressions are in the calculate module. The model isn't there yet.
And in events, we now say when the events are dispatched, so for
that I left text that says if binding expression fails. There is
text about submission that needs to be moved. Is there a central
place for that text to go?
John Boyer: The editorial note
approach is the way to go. Then we can get the module out. Also
you're adding the bind attribute to SNB and nodeset module. That
module doesn't exist and has no author. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_Future_Features
. The bind module is part of the model bundle, and we might release
them together. It says "Add @bind to SNB and NSB bindings" but if
you look at the data model you will see "The Binding Attributes
Module" contains them.
Nick van: So I'm doing too much
work.
John Boyer: Also, instead of just a
nodeset attribute, we talked about nodeset binding on the bind
element.
Nick van: I wasn't sure where to put
that. That's also the Binding Attributes Module?
John Boyer: In which case you inherit
the thing. We need to find which of these modules come first in
order to build them.
Leigh Klotz: We can use the
topological sort algorithm!
John Boyer: If we had a graph. I'm
pretty sure the instance data module is first, and binding
attributes module is not far behind. Then other things can
reference them. For example, the model module which Uli is taking
on adds to attribute groups.
Leigh Klotz: Modularizing the
attribute and element groups in the XForms 1.1 RNG I sent out in
terms of the XForms Future Features list will help us find the
plug-in points and dependencies between them at least in the syntax
area; events, errors, etc. won't be covered here.
Action 2008-06-18.1: Leigh Klotz to modularize RNG Schema for XForms 1.1 and put it in the wiki.
Action 2008-06-18.2: Nick van den Bleeken to work on modularized RNG Schema for XForms 1.1 and help turn it into modularized XForms 1.2 schema for bind module and the binding attributes module.
Leigh Klotz: So is Nick doing
Binding Attributes Module or is Charlie because Charlie is doing
Instance Data Module?
Charlie Wiecha: It's OK.
John Boyer: The top-level bullets are
more groups of specs that are going out at the same time.
Action 2008-06-18.3: John Boyer to write Binding Attributes module for XForms 1.2.
John Boyer: Uli is on the Model Module.
John Boyer: Charlie when can you be
ready?
Charlie Wiecha: At least two
weeks.
John Boyer: And you need the binding
attributes module for setvalue, insert and delete.
Charlie Wiecha: I can get most of that
done without it.
John Boyer: Then we have enough stuff to talk about next week; two weeks from now, we need Binding Attributes and Instance Data ready to talk about with the group.
John Boyer: Nick, in the meantime you're picking up the Relax from Leigh so you can do that before returning to bind.
John Boyer: We need a summer
questionnaire.
Steven Pemberton: [irc] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/32219/formssummer08/
John Boyer: We have a virtual day,
but we also have actual days. Do we have any special AV
requirements?
Nick van: Maybe call in.
Charlie Wiecha: Maybe another try for
webcast.
John Boyer: I think we'll have to do
it ourselves. They mean LCD projector, flip charts, speakerphone. I
think yes on all.
John Boyer: Are there groups we
should be meeting? There's been an amalgamation of two working
groups into WebApps. Do we need to present our modularization to
them? And the JavaScript library?
Charlie Wiecha: You can also talk to
the Backplane XG about doing a show-and-tell with a number of
WGs.
John Boyer: I didn't see that there
was an space for the Backplane XG members to meet.
Charlie Wiecha: We thought we'd
schedule meetings with other working groups on Tuesday. We can talk
about modularization points. The Backplane could show Dojo and
Ubiquity integration, in terms of implementation.
John Boyer: So we should ask the
WebApps group for time to present to them. Through Backplane?
Charlie Wiecha: I will do that anyway,
but if you want a single request, we can do that.
John Boyer: In both cases it's
modularization.
Charlie Wiecha: I'll take that action
then.
John Boyer: Another group is the
HTML group. Should we talk about streamlined syntax? Task force,
Nick, Keith, Mark. Nick are you there?
Nick van: I'll ask. I think I can, for
the whole week.
John Boyer: CDF is another. It may
have fallen off our plate, but we still have mustUnderstand. Are we
going to try to re-invigorate some logic? Leigh?
Leigh Klotz: I put in mustUnderstand
to tell the XForms processor about required element and attribute
extensions. We took it out because we decided it was also about
telling the host processor, and that was a CDF responsibility. When
we talked tentatively to the CDF they said they were only
interested in namespace-free integrations and so it wasn't a good
fit. We could try again.
John Boyer: There's also a new XML Security group. I'd like to talk to them.
John Boyer: We should prepare, not
over the next two weeks, presentational materials for these groups.
Charlie, would you (maybe through Backplane) produce (possibly with
me) some material for the WebApps group?
Charlie Wiecha: That sounds like it
makes sense.
John Boyer: Jointly?
Charlie Wiecha: Start, review,
however.
Action 2008-06-18.4: Charlie Wiecha and John Boyer to create presentational materials for WebApps group for Tech Plenary.
John Boyer: Nick, can you provide
materials for HTML WG?
Nick van: Yes, assuming I go.
Action 2008-06-18.5: Nick van Den Bleeken to develop create presentational materials for CDF group for Tech Plenary.
John Boyer: Leigh, can you help with CDF?
Action 2008-06-18.6: Leigh Klotz and John Boyer to develop create presentational materials for CDF group for Tech Plenary.
Action 2008-06-18.7: John Boyer and John Boyer to develop create presentational materials for XML SEC group for Tech Plenary.
Keith Wells: I am working on the
Firefox 3 implementation report. Getting one that works is a
problem, but then the report will be a couple of days.
John Boyer: Then others can follow
your format. I can take it from there.
John Boyer: And for Chiba?
Nick van: I don't have time nor do
Joern and Lars. They've never run the test suite.
John Boyer: Our current test suite
is fairly manual.
Keith Wells: That's a fair statement.
I've been working with Selenium, which is an open-source
Apache-based license. We've been creating Selenium test cases. The
hope is that that will be used as an automatic test suite. It
doesn't handle open dialog, which is how Mozilla handles messages.
It may require extensions for each implementation. I'd like to make
it available.
John Boyer: I know Paul and Mark are
interested as well. Is the correct path a way to change the tests
not to use dialogs?
Leigh Klotz: It's a failure to follow
our own MVC architecture so that supports changing them.
John Boyer: Anything you do to make it
more automatic will pay off.
Keith Wells: It's a multi-stage target
for us.
Leigh Klotz: Also, Mozilla's
implementation of xf:message as s JavaScript alert isn't in
agreement with what people are doing these days anyway, which is
CSS for grayed-out displays.
John Boyer: Mark has some done. Leigh as well.
John Boyer: Leigh, did you feel
your work with ITS is done?
Leigh Klotz: I'm waiting for a
document from Felix Sasaki. He wants us to publish it. I'll ping
him.
John Boyer: Is ITS sufficient? What
about ref?
Leigh Klotz: The label/@ref is already
I18N. The referred document of labels is simply I18N'd
itself.
John Boyer: So is this important for
us?
Leigh Klotz: It's low effort. I'll
ping Felix and ask if he has it done for us or if we need
anything.
Paul Butcher: In the spec, it
mentions SOAP encodings. There are three possible ways to progress.
One is to say that the encoding attribute doesn't have a result in
the headers, another that it does unless there is a conflict in the
SOAP definition (the best I think).
John Boyer: What's happening
now?
Paul Butcher: In the spec or
implementations?
John Boyer: The spec.
Paul Butcher: It says nothing; only
data serializations. It doesn't say about headers. In the section
about SOAP, there are quotes about charset MIME parameters.
John Boyer: So it's appended?
Paul Butcher: That's option A.
John Boyer: So what if an encoding
attribute conflicts with the charset setting?
Paul Butcher: Yes, that's the
issue.
John Boyer: <submission ...
mediatype="application/soap+xml; charset=xyz" ...
<John_Boyer> ... encoding="UTF-8"
Paul Butcher: Correct.
John Boyer: 1) what if encoding given
and charset not given
John Boyer: 2) what if encoding given
and charset also given but different
John Boyer: Is there a default if not
given?
Paul Butcher: UTF-8
John Boyer: If the encoding is not
given, then it's given. If the charset says ISO-8859-1 then it's a
conflict.
Paul Butcher: Yes.
John Boyer: You said what happens now
is the accept header is set. accept header has charset if and only
if @mediatype expresses one
Paul Butcher: We don't exactly
implement this in the message.
John Boyer: So option A has a "but"
and you don't implement that.
Paul Butcher: Yes.
John Boyer: So option A is to keep
current spec. option b is to keep current spec wording from above
(accept header has charset if and only if mediatype expresses one).
So your option A says if someone expresses a charset, use it.
Paul Butcher: That means it always
overrides because it's UTF-8. I think that's wrong.
John Boyer: option b is to keep
current spec wording from above (accept header has charset if and
only if mediatype expresses one)
John Boyer: option A (preferable) is
that encoding is used to set charset in accept header if charset is
not expressed in submission mediatype
John Boyer: So the proposal is that in
XForms 1.1 we switch to Option A.
John Boyer: proposal: In XForms 1.1
switch SOAP behavior to say that submission encoding provides
charset to accept header if submission mediatype does not express
charset
John Boyer: I suppose that will
produce another test-suite test.
Keith Wells: I think so.
John Boyer: As we've made the changes
to 1.1, are the test suites being updated.
Keith Wells: So far I'm doing
OK.
John Boyer: As an example,
required-but-empty back in validity.
Keith Wells: That one hasn't been
made.
Action 2008-06-18.8: Keith Wells to add required-but-empty test back into validity.
John Boyer: Anyone see a problem with this proposal? No?
Resolution 2008-06-18.1: In XForms 1.1 switch SOAP behavior to say that submission encoding provides charset to accept header if submission mediatype does not express charset.
Action 2008-06-18.9: John Boyer to, in XForms 1.1, switch SOAP behavior to say that submission encoding provides charset to accept header if submission mediatype does not express charset.
John Boyer: The link in the agenda
the last time we talked about it.
John Boyer: Deferring to XForms 2.0
left this question: What happens to a model inside a form
element?
Nick van: Didn't we say it would
merge?
John Boyer: A separate model.
Nick van: No, a merge. The implicit UI
model merges into the expressed model.
John Boyer: What if the form tag has
two models?
Nick van: We decided it wasn't
possible.
John Boyer: I think Erik said that was
unnecessarily restrictive. Maybe just the first model gets the
implicit behaviors merged?
Nick van: That seems reasonable, but
if you have multiple models, you have to use the model attribute
and then it isn't simplified syntax.
John Boyer: Definitely, but there
aren't just two things (simplified and full).
Nick van: I think there's no problem;
we had just decided not to allow it
Leigh Klotz: You're thinking about the
problem of crossing the barrier.
John Boyer: Yes. I can't see a good
reason to have more than one model in a form tag, but I'd be happy
to say we pay attention to the first one, but Erik said it seemed
restrictive for no reason.
Nick van: In HTML you can have two
form tags.
John Boyer: Each can have its own
model. UI controls within the form tag would not need a model
attribute to talk to that model.
Nick van: If you add a separate model
is that local to the children of the form tag or if you have two
form elements is the first form element available in another?
John Boyer: We have that problem
already once we have the model expressed.
Nick van: Since it has an id and you
can refer to it.
John Boyer: That's the first level. If
a person actually creates a model tag.
John Boyer: ...
Nick van: If you have no instance you
can use lazy authoring. If you have an instance, ... If someone
write the spec for the models then we can do it.
John Boyer: Somehow the action item
landed on me for the streamlined syntax. There'll be a better lazy
authoring story based on the name attribute. I can see the model
expressed for submissions and instances for web services but the
implied instance for UI. I'll try to do that.