Erik Bruchez, Orbeon
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Paul Butcher, WebBackplane
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C
Charlie Wiecha, IBM
John Boyer: Steve Bratt has asked
chairs to reduce the number of F2F meetings. We've already done
that. Is everybody comfortable with the ones we have now?
Steven Pemberton: Yes.
Nick van: [irc] me too
John Boyer: Ok.
Charlie Wiecha: Jack Janssen from
CWI has implemented SMIL with Ubiquity. We're talking about SMIL
code scheduling using the XForms "relevance" concept. It may be a
unifying concept we use more broadly than XForms. Plus, the
Ubiquity loader framework gives XML support in the client, as we
discussed at TPAC and which I will discuss at AC.
Charlie Wiecha: I'm concerned we don't
have an ODF rendering engine in the client. Things like numbered
lists, recursion for bullets, can be a few classes (as a proof of
concept) in Ubiquity.
Charlie Wiecha: Kevin Kelley has left
IBM and has left the Backplane group. Please join us Tuesdays at
11.
Steven Pemberton: I think it's a
good issue for W3C.
Charlie Wiecha: I think it's a good
way of pointing out that the browser is not just an HTML
engine.
Leigh Klotz: Given that we aren't
pursuing the XForms 1.2 modularization as a top-level goal right
now, making modularized RNC schemas for XForms 1.2 may not be as
critical; however, breaking the files up into multiple sections
(submission, form controls, etc.) is possibly useful.
John Boyer: Maybe as we get to
understand new modularization ther will be.
Leigh Klotz: You can use the James
Clark's NXML package from thaiopensource to get RNC validation of
XHTML. If you want to get XHTML+XForms validation, use this
http://xformstest.org/mode-20041004.tar.gz
and do this
(push "/path/to/emacs/nxml-mode-20041004/" load-path)
(load-library "nxml-mode")
(setq auto-mode-alist
(cons <code>("\\.\\(xslt\\|xhtml\\|xml\\|xsl\\|rng\\|xhtml\\|xsd\\)\\</code>" . nxml-mode)
auto-mode-alist))
Charlie Wiecha: I already have NXML
installed.
Leigh Klotz: If you already have
nxml-mode installed, just extract the schemas/klotz directory from
the tar file and merge it in with your version. It adds the
XHTML+XForms type to the XML/Set Schema/For Document Type menu to
select XHTML+XForms.
Erik Bruchez: I don't have strong
feelings, but it doesn't seem there is a good use case for
it.
Leigh Klotz: Do you feel the same
about input?
Erik Bruchez: It's a mandatory
single-node binding.
John Boyer: Yes, it's required. I
think there has been some tendency to use label text using XForms
rather than HTML content to make it easy to move content from one
XForms supporting-type to another; XFDL vs. XHTML is my interest,
but to some extent, ODF as well.
Leigh Klotz: But we don't prohibit it
in the schema; I found this with the Mozilla implementation and
couldn't prove it was wrong.
Erik Bruchez: Yes. I found the
same.
Nick van: You can use a label inside a
group.
John Boyer: Yes, label is not a form
control.
Erik Bruchez: You can also put it in a
case.
John Boyer: That's acceptable. But
group is important because it says anywhere you have a label you
can skin it in a form control by putting it in a group. But it is
at least a form control. If I just want to output plain text, my
options are quoted value attribute, or output with label.
Leigh Klotz: Doesn't output with label
inherit the context?
John Boyer: It does but it doesn't
it's not bound to anything. The text doesn't say. It says it can be
used for two things but doesn't say what it does with
neither.
Erik Bruchez: I know what Leigh is
saying that the schema doesn't prohibit it but the spec does. If
you don't have a containing form control, what does it do? It seems
clear that it doesn't say what to do. I don't know how widespread
it is. Our users don't because we don't allow it. I don't think
there's much to do here, but I do want to clarify it.
John Boyer: We have had situations
where we have edge cases on usages and we tend to try to make those
work. That's my advocacy for making it work. Perhaps we should say
that it shows the label.
Erik Bruchez: output
doesn't allow inline text, though. That would make more sense. That
has a parallel with HTML, which shows text if the element is not
recognized.
Leigh Klotz: That's the same argument
that leads to label being used.
Erik Bruchez: ...
John Boyer: Output with inline content
with a value element would be an XForms 1.2 feature. If you have
inline content rendered, and you also want to use label, what about
the whitespace? And what about the inline content minus the
label?
Erik Bruchez: The label would be
output as a label element. But if it has a single-node binding...
the only thing I am saying here is that it's not clear when there
is no single-node binding and output itself for output. The label
itself is clear.
John Boyer: For XForms 1.1, it's not
going to be interoperable because we didn't say what to do if it
has no single-node binding and no value. The easiest thing to do is
if to fix the test cases not do it. In XForms 1.2, we can do
something else.
Erik Bruchez: I agree; we don't need
to fix it to solve the problem; just change the test cases.
Nick van: [irc] chiba doesn't allow
it, I think
John Boyer: It's kind of late in the
game for 1.1, and there's no compelling use case to make output do
this.
John Boyer: So are people comfortable
with the conclusion that we need to fix some test cases and not
define the behavior?
John Boyer: Erik do you know which
test cases they are?
Erik Bruchez: I modified a few and hit
a few by chance, but I haven't looked.
John Boyer: Can you do this?
Erik Bruchez: I have the action of
sending the modified version of the tests to Nick or John, or
getting cvs access.
Action 2009-02-18.1: Erik Bruchez to produce modified version of the tests using output with no binding to Nick or John, or getting cvs access.
Nick van: Can I fix the appendix
tests, by adding the ev:observer, that Keith was planning to
do?
John Boyer: Test cases to modify:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Feb/0035.html
Action 2009-02-18.2: Nick van den Bleeken to double-check modifications to tests to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Feb/0035.html
Nick van: The tests have a listener
for xforms-ready but they aren't in xf:model so we need ev:observer
to attach to the model.
John Boyer: Couldn't you just move it
to the model?
Nick van: It's easier to add the
observer.
John Boyer: But it's a non-required
feature so moving it would be better.
Nick van: OK, I'll undo the change and
move them into the model.
Action 2009-02-18.3: Nick van den Bleeken to change Appendix B test to move the tests into the model.
John Boyer: Can you check these in
and send mail to the list?
Nick van: OK.
John Boyer: Can you periodically
keep this list up to date?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Feb/0049.html
John Boyer: There are some that need
two implementations, and some need only one. We need this list to
be updated when we get items in; we'll still have to double check
when we think the list is empty, but keeping track from
week-to-week would be helpful.
Nick van: I can do that also.
John Boyer: Thank you. There should be
email to the list so we can see the archive. When we're ready to
advance to PR, we'll provide full reports from Ubiquity.
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2008/XForms11ImplReports/Chiba/FocusedResults.html
Nick van: I'll send in drafts now but
later versions as we move forward another 5%.
John Boyer: The list is based on
Firefox, EMC, Chiba, and Ubiquity, as far as I know. All are
intending to provide full reports. Just operate off email for
updating the running list. Don't produce an updated report; that
will come from the implementors.
Nick van: I will create a wiki page
then and use history.
John Boyer: That's an astoundingly
good idea.
John Boyer: What should we talk
about for 1/2 hour?
Steven Pemberton: Which would you
prefer?
John Boyer: I'd like 20 minutes on the
XHTML for XForms assertions.
Steven Pemberton: If we wanted XForms
2, that would need more preparation work.
Leigh Klotz: Can I suggest we just
write the testable assertions, document what they should do, and
let the Ubiquity test framework use Selenium to test its
implementation? Let's avoid using XForms to write the success-fail
validation framework. It works for XForms 1.0 and 1.1 but was
difficult to get the dependencies right. For XForms for XHTML,
let's just let the implementor (in this case Ubiquity) use its own
test framework.
Nick van: Can we put the expected test
results in an XML file?
Leigh Klotz: If there is a
sufficiently abstract way to express it.
Charlie Wiecha: That's a good idea.
Don't write the action handlers.
John Boyer: Sounds good.
John Boyer: Para 1 is must, shall,
etc.
John Boyer: Motivation, attributes,
script methods.
John Boyer: Local attributes. Other
consuming host languages may use the XForms namespace.
John Boyer: So we just list local
attributes for test cases; if someone wants to test an
implementation with the XForms namespace, they would just say that
in their implementation report.
John Boyer: The last paragraph says
host processor should be namespace-aware.
Leigh Klotz: Why do we say that?
John Boyer: It's not required.
John Boyer: Host languages can adopt
XForms elements.
John Boyer: I don't think there are
any tests of conformance coming out of section 1.
John Boyer: Each form is denoted by
a form element and its content.
John Boyer: A form can contain a
model; if it contains more than one model, all but the first must
be ignored.
John Boyer: How do we collect the
assertions together? In a wiki?
Leigh Klotz: Or in the spec; maybe
generate them?
Charlie Wiecha: What tags in spec
xml?
Leigh Klotz: I don't know.
John Boyer: We would have a minimal
form with something minimal in it and someone would then decorate
with detecting that this assertion has been met.
Charlie Wiecha: Yes.
John Boyer: If for every assertion we
had test with markup in the text, wouldn't that bloat the
text.
Charlie Wiecha: That's not what Leigh
was suggesting.
Leigh Klotz: I think CSS printing and
SOAP 1.2 for example just have anchors in the spec for each
assertion.
Charlie Wiecha: Put RDFa on the
paragraph.
John Boyer: I can put ids on the
phrases but that doesn't make it clear to the reader.
Charlie Wiecha: Maybe in addition to
diff mode you have assertion mode. A transform walks the XML and
picks them up. Just an idea. We do have this RDFa technology.
Steven? Does it seem reasonable?
Steven Pemberton: Sure.
John Boyer: So what might one write
specifically to say this thing is an assertion.
Steven Pemberton: Work backwards from
what you want to extract. Do you want the text of the thing? You
need to say what the assertion is about; then you have a property
that says it's an assertion; then you have the text of the
assertion. You could use class or role, but if it's RDFa you have
to say it's an assertion about something and what that something
is.
Leigh Klotz: Take a look at
http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#assertions
and see that they have done design-for-test so that their
assertions are called out with a dagger mark, and they highlight
when you mouse over them.
John Boyer: And they have a table at
the end.
Leigh Klotz: Probably generated with a
transform like Charlie said.
John Boyer: I should explore this.
Action 2009-02-18.4: John Boyer to explore design-for-test assertions in XForms for XHTML using this as an example: http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#assertions
John Boyer: What about these tests
that say encoding="ASCII"
Leigh Klotz: They're wrong. I fixed
the ones I had to edit.
John Boyer: Isn't it a no-op to
change?
Leigh Klotz: Yes. It's just the
checking in.
Nick van: I'll do it.
Action 2009-02-18.5: Nick van den Bleeken to fix XML encodings to use UTF-8 instead of ASCII.