Charlie Wiecha, IBM
Erik Bruchez, Orbeon
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Kenneth Sklander, Picoforms
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
Uli Lissé DreamLabs
John Boyer: Steven, I know you
won't make that one. How many more before the break?
Charlie Wiecha: I'm here until the
23rd.
John Boyer: I'm here until the
16th.
Steven Pemberton: So the 6th will be
the first call?
Nick van: [irc] can't make 30th
december too
Charlie Wiecha: So we drop all
three?
John Boyer: Do we want to drop the
6th?
Steven Pemberton: What's the problem
with the 6th?
John Boyer: None for me. So we just
drop December 23 and December 30?
Steven Pemberton: I'm good for the
6th.
Nick van: fine for me
John Boyer: OK, our last call will be
December 16th, and the first will be January 6, 2010.
Resolution 2009-12-2.1: Our last teleconference for 2009 will be December 16th, and the first will be January 6, 2010.
John Boyer: I spoke to
Phillipe
Steven Pemberton: Phillipe has been
away from work.
John Boyer: When do we start with new
calls? The 6th?
Steven Pemberton: I'm happy to help
with the transition.
John Boyer: Thank you. You'll chair on
January 6th?
Steven Pemberton: We should get
together the day before for the agenda, by email?
John Boyer: I have the running agenda
document. I'll send it to you on the 4th.
John Boyer: The matrix is updated
for Rec. The validator checkbox should be there for XForms 1.1. Ian
Jacobs asked for the link to the validator I gave him the
schemas.
Steven Pemberton: W3C has an online
schema validator so we should be able to make a form that uses
it.
Leigh Klotz: I've also heard from the
Relax ISO committe that they have found some mistakes in our RNG
schema and will be sending us info.
John Boyer: Updates are welcome.
John Boyer: These combine XForms 1.1 and XHTML 1.0.
John Boyer: Leigh, these are a good start for your action item to produce a WG Note.
Action 2009-12-2.1: Leigh Klotz to examine http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2009Nov/0001.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2009Nov/0001.html for WG Note.
Steven Pemberton: What is the URL
for the Schema?
John Boyer: It's in the spec.
Leigh Klotz: It's a ZIP file.
John Boyer: The RNC one is a Zip file;
the XSD one isn't. But it's not the XHTML 1.0 + XForms one you
would need for the validator.
John Boyer: Should we defer this to December 10 or is it urgent?
Nick van: Wasn't there a problem
with one type?
John Boyer: The problem was
normalizedString; this form doesn't have it.
Leigh Klotz: So the theory is that you
don't get xforms-valid when the processor starts but you do when
you get reset?
John Boyer: According to the reset
action, that sets another copy of the data into place, and you get
rebuild/recalculate/revalidate/refresh. Can we find support for
getting xforms-valid events in these cases? Or do we amend the
test? It looks like some processors do it.
Leigh Klotz: And you said XForms said
that?
John Boyer: It's a conjecture.
Charlie Wiecha: That reset behaves
differently from initial form load?
John Boyer: It does behave differently
but we are now more rigorous on xforms-valid. For example, you
don't get the events on instance replacement; we cleared that
up.
Leigh Klotz: What would a form author
do? Would rebuild do it?
John Boyer: No.
Charlie Wiecha: A setvalue with empty
value.
John Boyer: But it's already
empty.
Leigh Klotz: So I'd never get
xforms-invalid if I don't type anything?
John Boyer: In this case, empty is
valid. So xforms-invalid is a fail. You should see
xforms-valid.
John Boyer: reset event does
rebuild/recalculate/revalidate/refresh
Nick van: http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#evt-revalidate
Nick van: revalidate says "If the node
changes from valid to invalid..." So if the complete document is
replaced there are no changed nodes.
John Boyer: It's probably from a long
time ago.
Charlie Wiecha: Under point 4, there's
some suggestion of firing the events as a side effect of
reset.
John Boyer: It says that the UI
reflects the state of the model, not that events are the means to
achieve that.
Charlie Wiecha: We need to nail down
the UI discussion.
John Boyer: The link defines
validity.
Charlie Wiecha: The events follow from
the default action of the revalidate event. OK.
Charlie Wiecha: You have to start with
non-empty process.
Leigh Klotz: Or you could use a
succesful submission to test validity.
John Boyer: You'd have to check for
submit-error and submit-done and look for context information for
validity error.
Leigh Klotz: That sounds better than
this.
John Boyer: It could start non-empty,
then you could do the setvalue, then the submit.
Charlie Wiecha: It doesn't need to be
non-empty.
John Boyer: It's a radically different
form then. Perhaps a simpler one.
Charlie Wiecha: Yes, but the setvalue
isn't necessary.
John Boyer: First, let's agree that
reset shouldn't produce the events.
Charlie Wiecha: Yes, I don't like it,
but that's the way it is.
John Boyer: Our upcoming UI event
proposals still don't dispatch those events on reset. We have two
conditions for xforms-valid or xforms-invalid: the node's value
changes (UI, setvalue, bind/@calculate) or, the nodes validity
changes (combination of things with revalidate).
Nick van: In the new UI event
proposal, reset will have them sent when the nodes change from
valid to invalid, and also for instance replacement.
John Boyer: And for form
startup?
Nick van: That's not decided; there
are other proposals (xforms-enabled context info,
xforms-enabled).
John Boyer: OK, so what do we do
for this test? Some processors are getting the event.
Leigh Klotz: The Ubiquity test shows
it does get the event. The events are problematic and we know that
we want to change the way the UI events work. So testing with
submission is easier and less problematic.
John Boyer: It's a different
test.
Leigh Klotz: The data types would be
the same and that's what's being tested.
Nick van: There are several tests for
validity and readonly and changing them all would be a lot of
work.
Leigh Klotz: submission can't test
readonly.
John Boyer: Let's look at the other
tests in the chapter. We'd have to change the 5.2 tests to use
submission; the others use setvalue. We're not losing coverage on
these events as they're tested elsewhere. But we don't want to go
through the test suite making changes.
Charlie Wiecha: We could do the same
in 5.1.a.
John Boyer: That's not a contentious
use of the xforms-valid event; even in the new UI system it would
still work. Testing xforms-valid is good, no matter where we test
it, but if we change the 5.2 tests only, then we fix the problem
without materially changing how much stuff we test.
Charlie Wiecha: It's reasonable to
change 5.2 to use non-empty value and setvalue.
Leigh Klotz: That works too, as long
as we don't change it to something that we think is broken and want
to fix next time.
John Boyer: We could change 5.1.a and
use the valid values and then do setvalue to empty string.
Nick van: It should start invalid
because we want invalid values.
John Boyer: Who will re-write the
test?
Charlie Wiecha: I'll do it.
John Boyer: Will you also 5.2.1 a, b,
and c?
Charlie Wiecha: I'll do it.
John Boyer: Submission or setvalue? If
you do submission you need to look at the context info.
Charlie Wiecha: I thought I'd use
setvalue. It gives finer grain results about types.
Leigh Klotz: As long as it's not a
behavior we plan to change in 1.2.
John Boyer: So let's test that.
Nick van: You don't get the invalid
event for string.
Leigh Klotz: The "string" test is good
because it tests for the validity of the form. Perhaps the
processor implementor forgot to implement xf:string type.
John Boyer: OK. So we just have to
know that string won't give an invalid.
Nick van: [irc] "When you activate the
Invalid Values trigger you must see an "XFORMS-INVALID" output for
all the data types except string, which will either have an output
of xforms-valid or no output. "
Action 2009-12-2.2: Charlie Wiecha to re-write XForms 1.1 test 5.2.1 a, b, and c to use setvalue instead of reset to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Nov/0022.html
John Boyer: The document encoding
is iso-8859-1.
Leigh Klotz: The instance data
e-with-acute-accent is iso-8859-1 and it's the same.
Nick van: It's not the same in UTF-8;
it's a multi-byte character.
John Boyer: OK, so the XML file should
be UTF-8 and the instance data should be in two-byte UTF-8.
Leigh Klotz: And in UTF-8 is's C3A9
LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH ACUTE
Steven Pemberton: The W3C server is
serving it up as UTF-8.
Leigh Klotz: Yes, saving it locally
works.
Nick van: The DOM doesn't have an
encoding.
Leigh Klotz: The header disagrees so
saving and loading works.
Nick van: It's easier to fix the
content than the header.
John Boyer: The test isn't broken;
it's just the wrong type.
Leigh Klotz: But the LATIN SMALL
LETTER E WITH ACUTE in the isntance data is in ISO-8859-1 and we
must fix that as well.
Nick van: XML editors will fix it
correctly.
John Boyer: Nick?
Nick van: I can do it.
Leigh Klotz: We can ask Joern to
verify.
Action 2009-12-2.3: Nick van den Bleeken to fix character encoding of file http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Test/XForms1.1/Edition1/Chapt11/11.9/11.9.8/11.9.8.a.xhtml to be UTF-8 and adjust content � appropriately and respond to http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Test/XForms1.1/Edition1/Chapt11/11.9/11.9.8/11.9.8.a.xhtml
John Boyer: Maybe we will update
the zip files for the tests when all of Joern's issues are
done.
Charlie Wiecha: Sounds good.
John Boyer: We don't have enough
exceptions; the rules are a little snaky between the two. So which
one are we supposed to get? Is there already an action to deal with
this?
John Boyer: Reading the spec, I think
it has to be binding exception.
Uli Lissé: [leaves]
Erik Bruchez: Value isn't a binding.
The names are broken.
John Boyer: The output/@value changes
if the referenced nodes change.
Erik Bruchez: There's nothing the spec
that says value creates a binding.
John Boyer: "The value is updated if
the referenced nodes change."
Erik Bruchez: OK, it must happen
during refresh.
John Boyer: It says it in the spec.
It's not rigorously defined, and a lower priority disconnect that
I've been aware of.
Erik Bruchez: That's fine. Binding
exception should be limited to SNB and nodeset bindings in order
for people to figure it out. Then it's easy to answer the question
when you get the binding exception. For MIP and binding attributes,
you'd get somethign else, but we haven't madet that
decisions.
John Boyer: We did; we said
compute-exception is for compute and binding exception is for all
others. An "at" attribte will give you a binding exception.
Erik Bruchez: It's highly
unsatisfactory.
John Boyer: I agree, but we didn't get
another type.
Erik Bruchez: Are we happy with the
spec text then?
John Boyer: No. The lesser evil seemed
not using compute if it wasn't a compute.
Erik Bruchez: It would be simpler to
have xforms-xpath-error for non-binding, non-compute errors.
Erik Bruchez: Also XPath 2.0 has
static and dynamic errors. We should redesign the events.
John Boyer: Nowhere can we find the
comment that all XPath expression except for MIP will get an
xforms-binding-exception if something is wrong with the XPath. @at,
@value, a few other places that aren't SNB or @nodeset.
John Boyer: So the first thing is to
fix the label in the test to say xforms-binding-exception.
Nick?
Nick van: Yes.
Action 2009-12-2.4: Nick van den Bleeken to change label in http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Test/XForms1.1/Edition1/Chapt11/11.9/11.9.8/11.9.8.a.xhtml to say xforms-binding-exception.
Action 2009-12-2.5: John Boyer to produce proposed erratum for miscellaneous XPath expressions so that all XPath expression except for MIP will get an xforms-binding-exception if something is wrong with the XPath. @at, @value, a few other places that aren't SNB or @nodeset.
Action 2009-12-2.6: Erik Bruchez to propose revampled XPath exceptions for XForms 1.2 as part of XPath 2.0 work.
John Boyer: See you next week
Leigh Klotz: [IRC] Next meeting
December 9th Our last teleconference for 2009 will be December
16th, and the first will be January 6, 2010.