W3C Forms teleconference September 24, 2008

* Present

John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Roger Pérez, SATEC
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
Uli Lissé, DreamLabs
Paul Butcher, WebBackplane
Charlie Wiecha, IBM
Keith Wells, IBM

* Agenda

* Previous Minutes


* ACM Conference

John Boyer: I gave a talk on "Interactive Office Documents," applications in office documents, using XForms. Also, Jack Jansen's paper at http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer?entry=on_the_best_paper_at which uses XForms for video.

* Next FtF

John Boyer: October 15-16 Virtual, Oct. 20-21 Cannes. Please post particular agenda items you want discussed. Steven, we need Zakim booked.
Steven Pemberton: During the F2F?
John Boyer: I have asked for a phone. It's an admin req.
Steven Pemberton: I'll make sure for the F2F and the virtual days.
John Boyer: What times? Six hours and an hour break?
Steven Pemberton: Yes, I thought last time was quite good, though I was in the US.
John Boyer: Steven, if you want to do what we did before, that's OK. The hour long break is time to get home and eat; for us on the west coast, it's breakfast time, and for east coast, I think it's 9-3.
Charlie Wiecha: That's what I have in my calendar.

Action 2008-09-24.1: Steven Pemberton to book Zakim for F2F and Virtual Days same time as last year, which we believe is 9AM-3PM Eastern, with an hour break.

John Boyer: And what about the meeting hour times?
Steven Pemberton: We're stuck with the hours there.
John Boyer: I think it would be a waste of time to meet in the morning, but after lunch is OK.
Nick van: [off] I'm going to Cannes.
Keith Wells: [off] I will attend remotely, best I can.

* Meeting time with XMLSec

John Boyer: I would like to meet with them to discuss some of issues with the signatures on live, running documents. I'm not sure if 90 minutes is too long, but they're wondering if 11-12:30 is a good time. I understand there's two lunch periods, and we tend to go to the earlier one so we have an extra hour of teleconference.
Charlie Wiecha: How about WebApps?
John Boyer: That's next. So is 11-12:30 a good time? Would you like to hear what I have to say?
Keith Wells: Yes.
Nick van: [off] I'm interested
John Boyer: We'll go to their room. If they can make our lives easier in the future, it's good.
Charlie Wiecha: What day?
John Boyer: Monday.
Charlie Wiecha: I have 3:00 with MMI on Monday and 1:00 on A11Y, for Backplane.
John Boyer: So the later lunch, or just go at 12:30-1:30?
Steven Pemberton: It may still take an hour to eat.


John Boyer: Chris Wilson has planned for an hour for us to describe Ubiquity and streamlined syntax. I'll be giving him the first round. We're hoping to re-energize interest.

* Webapps

John Boyer: The chair, Art Barstow, has declined the invitation. I gave reasons for why I think there's overlap, but he didn't provide any reasons, so I asked, and only four people responded saying they were interested. I suggested he ask if anyone was opposed. I didn't see anything on the mailing list. I have sent yet another email back saying that TPAC is where groups with overlapping work discuss their common interests. The response was that he agreed with TPAC and overlapping concerns and so we have decided we're going to work on our work during this meeting. I have not gotten a response back.
Steven Pemberton: Is WebApps still alive?
John Boyer: Yes, they have 700 emails in their last set. They have merged two groups. So the list is active. Doug Scheppers suggested I join the list and discuss XForms streamlined syntax. I thought I might raise this at HCG, though I can't try too hard to force a meeting.


John Boyer: We're not able to pursue this as there's not much activity there, though we would like to discuss mustUnderstand

* Backplane

Charlie Wiecha: We're planning to show XForms-based patterns to coordinate across components, for example Jack's SMIL+XForms. I have data model voice interaction (not X+V which is on-the-glass.) And some data model submission from Ubiquity in Dojo and YUI. There's a hope that Mark will talk on Wednesday about abstractions of behavior independent of markup, but we don't know if he's going to talk.
John Boyer: Holding his talk afterwards may be better after our talk.
John Boyer: Steven, can you ask for the talks to ordered?
Steven Pemberton: Yes, if Mark is coming.
John Boyer: Paul, can you confirm with Mark?
Paul Butcher: Yes.

* News Items

Steven Pemberton: It's moved up on my todo list.
John Boyer: We can also have the news item about Jack's paper.
Steven Pemberton: I'll work on it now.

Action 2008-09-24.2: Steven to work on news right now.

* XForms 1.1 Test suite


Keith Wells: All but submission headers is done.

* XForms 1.0 Basic

Leigh Klotz: No progress as I was working on submission headers.

* Submission headers fix?

John Boyer: I was trying to find it.
Leigh Klotz: I'm not sure where to put the note about HTTP and a non-normative note warning about the specifics of how it works with headers.
John Boyer: What's the RFC?
Leigh Klotz: Google search says it's RFC 2616.

* Actions Module

John Boyer: Who says we don't need an actions module if we move to XML Events 2?!? our actions, event() properties, deferred update behavior, specialized context
Nick van: I thought that would go in our driver module.
John Boyer: Let's back up. For setvalue?
Nick van: It should go in the instance module; if you have no instance, you can't have setvalue, so it doesn't belong in a general action module.
John Boyer: The troublesome bit is how does the instance module enhance the non-existent actions module?
Nick van: There are actions; the action element is defined in XML Events 2.
Charlie Wiecha: I think the idea is that the atomic actions are distributed to separate modules; there should be a companion module to instance adding insert, delete, and setvalue.
Nick van: ...
John Boyer: That makes more sense now; thank you.

John Boyer: The XML Events 2 spec description of the event function says it will return a value corresponding to a property. Actually, I should check the return type.
Nick van: Same type as ours.
John Boyer: It doesn't define any properties at all. I know that we define event-specific properties and I agree those should live in the event description in whichever module is adding that event, so I'm good there; but we have had a problem that we have never defined a set of properties that are or are should be available to all events such as who is the target and whether you are cancellable or bubbles.
Nick van: target
John Boyer: I know that the name target is another issue. But maybe we should send feedback to XML Events 2 and say that they should define this information available to every event, because we've found that saying "do this only if event-target is such" is useful. So maybe that needs to get pushed.
Nick van: Yes. I want to send mail to the list. We decided some changes were needed to XML Events 2 module, but I haven't sent the mail yet. We support child elements for dynamic values, but we can ask, and some attributes with different names. There are some problems with XHTML and naming attributes that collide.
John Boyer: I noticed the change from target to destid. That's the second point I starred. It's hard to name stuff. Steven asked for suggestions, so how about receiver? We talk about objects receiving events, and I looked at other event systems and saw that receiver is used, so that's a suggestion. It seems better than destid.
John Boyer: Deferred update would be in the model module, so I'm good there. How about specialized context?
Nick van: ...
John Boyer: Charlie, you're doing a module for data.
Charlie Wiecha: The residual stuff after we factored out instance: setvalue, etc.
John Boyer: The data actions module. So when someone writes the repeat or switch module, it seems a little odd to get specialized context from the data actions module.
Nick van: You need the instance module to have data.
John Boyer: But you don't need the data actions module. So maybe a tiny, irritating spec on specialized context.
Leigh Klotz: Is this the dot-dot problem?
John Boyer: The XPath context for @if and such would be no context node and a size of zero. So it would be the in-scope evaluation context, defined by the context attribute.
Leigh Klotz: So we say that the context attribute has this behavior.
John Boyer: Good. But there are some where you can't.
Nick van: In XML events you can use the null function in an if.
John Boyer: Toggle, setfocus, and index have an in-scope evaluation context but no @context.
Leigh Klotz: So add @context to them.
John Boyer: I see what you're saying. That fixes it.

* Review of Bind Module


Nick van: At the last teleconference, we discussed the binding exception. I'll republish that. It will be only for binding exceptions. In XForms 1.1 we have other things that use it and those will get another exception.
John Boyer: For failing to match an ID can you call that something like xforms-idref-exception.
Nick van: That doesn't go in this module. There's an editorial note that says that other modules need their own exceptions now.
John Boyer: So bind doesn't have any id references?
Nick van: If it does, our idref system needs to be defined elsewhere.
John Boyer: I thought that bind module would define the bind element and its ID, and add the bind attribute.
Nick van: Yes, but the module can refer to an ID. On submission, you can refer to an instance, and that's an IDREF that might not exist. Or a model attribute on a control. Those are idrefs that aren't available and aren't bind.
Nick van: ...
John Boyer: Perhaps you should make that change to the bind module. Two MIPs to the same node is a different type of exception. So either a new name or more context information.

* Submission Module

John Boyer: Do you think you might be able to start the submission module?
Uli Lissé: Not yet, but for the TPAC.
John Boyer: Break out the spec, take out relevance and validity and come up with a way to have a placeholder where other modules might be able to inject their behavior into the processing stream of the XForms submit event.
Uli Lissé: I've thought about it.
John Boyer: I'm wondering if we need to add more context information to the event to allow modules to communicate on processing, but action handler ordering issues might be a problem. The xforms-submit-event might have additional properties such as valid or invalid or validation failure and the validation module could change the results. You might need to add a pre-processing event and/or some context information.

* News Items

Steven Pemberton: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/#news

* New W3C test suite license

Keith Wells: I don't think it's a big deal. I've been doing due diligence.
John Boyer: What does it say? BSD license?
Keith Wells: Yes. You can modify test cases. So we need to find out what it means.
John Boyer: It seems weird to put a license on a test suite.
Keith Wells: Yes.
John Boyer: Please keep us posted.

* Resolutions without action items are useless

John Boyer: The resolutions are useless because there's no action items. Leigh manages minutes and Nick manages action items; a quick thanks. But I noticed in the past couple of telecons there were resolutions without action items.

* xforms-idref-exception

John Boyer: Someone needs to own this. Which modules?
Nick van: I will look it up.

Action 2008-09-24.3: Nick to ensure that http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Sep/att-0037/2008-09-17.html#resolution1 is handled by module owners, whatever the eventual name is.
John Boyer: Someone can own the action to check (Nick) and someone can do (John and Uli and model and others).

* case function

John Boyer: I can accept this. It would behave similar to the index function, which is now acting like implicit instance data that the index function creates a computational dependency, so that UI bindings automatically update. I believe we need to have the case function work the same way.
Leigh Klotz: We invented this by analogy to index. I sent a message back to the original author. I don't think I mentioned details of how case would work.
John Boyer: The data-based version of XForms switch may be how we answer his use case. We looked at doing something like @using for case.
Leigh Klotz: It may be that the authors just want to say it more directly, which is why we discussed XBL and macros.

Action 2008-09-24.4: John Boyer to provide spec-ready text for case() http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Sep/att-0037/2008-09-17.html#resolution2

* boolean-from-string

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Jun/0069.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Feb/0077.html

Paul Butcher: Can you accept this?

Action 2008-09-24.5: Paul Butcher to ensure that boolean-from-string proposal is handled in XForms 1.1 modules: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Sep/att-0025/2008-09-10.html#resolution1

* Streamlined syntax module


John Boyer: Charlie I noticed you mentioned XFormsA instead of XForms-A.
Steven Pemberton: [irc] RDFa instead of RDF/A to make it Google friendly.
Nick van: [irc] if you search for RDF/A on google the first item is RDFa Primer ;)

John Boyer: Attribute decoration gets the discussion away from XML well-formedness. So they are either local or global attributes. By the time someone wants to scale up from attribute to element versions of the behavior, then they might need some proper XML elements within their document format.

John Boyer: There's the model-view-controller-connector architecture, with connector replacing submission. During the runtime and at the end of the form, there's an ability to interface with the server.

John Boyer: There are four possibilities for attributes:

  1. adopt them without xf: as unprefixed

  2. accept an xf- prefixing strategy to avoid attribute name conflicts

Leigh Klotz: Maybe xf- is not the right prefix, for marketing purposes.
John Boyer: In the examples I'm not using xf-.
Leigh Klotz: Nobody wants a simplified version of something they already don't want.
Charlie Wiecha: fa? forms attributes?
Leigh Klotz: "XFormsA" is a good start but I think it needs a new name that isn't XForms.
Uli Lissé: [irc] formsx ;-)
John Boyer: It still needs to be able to scale up to the real namespace, or maybe it doesn't.
Leigh Klotz: I'd like to not get caught up in namespace discussions for the namespace-free version...

John Boyer: The next section is about form containment. The toughest part of an attribute approach is the form element in HTML. It seems like there should be an attribute way of indicating that something is the root element of a form, so I added for a form attribute with a qname. The HTML form element would give you a generated instance whose root element is data in the empty namespace; the attributes allow you to override.
Steven Pemberton: [irc] My time is up
John Boyer: A form element or an attribute still identifies the root element of the form; anything inside is a potentially a form control. A name attribute identifies form elements: name which gets you data, value, default, and checked, startSize for repeat, and more in the spec. There are starter examples with generated instance data. Please send comments.

* IRC Minutes


* Meeting Ends