W3C Forms teleconference November 18, 2009

* Present

Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Erik Bruchez, Orbeon
John Boyer, IBM (chair)
Charlie Wiecha, IBM
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Uli Lissé, Dreamlabs
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C

* Agenda


* Recharter request

John Boyer: We should discuss the next chairs. I've had some frank discussions and we have some obligations. I will be a member, but after many years, I've been asked not to chair the group.
Steven Pemberton: And editing?
John Boyer: Not the primary editor. But there are feature specs with different editors.
John Boyer: I don't want to speak up for others, but there is someone with lots of experience available.
Leigh Klotz: Or co-chair. I think having a co-chair is good anyway.
John Boyer: Who could step up to a co-chair role?
Nick van: They won't allow you to co-chair?
Charlie Wiecha: I might be able to but I don't know until next year.
John Boyer: We should think about this.

* Truncated minutes on Nov. 6

John Boyer: Erik and Nick helped by typing in what they could remember.
Steven Pemberton: It stopped at midnight GMT. I'll fix it.
Steven Pemberton: http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-forms-minutes.html

* Virtual F2F Day,

John Boyer: It's scheduled for tomorrow. Options are cancel or develop a specific agenda.
Steven Pemberton: Personally, I would prefer to cancel it.
Nick van: I'm booked until 2PM.
Leigh Klotz: Do we want to postpone rather than cancel?
John Boyer: December, or even January, would be better for me.
Nick van: It wil be hard to do extra meeting in January or February. December is busy but doable.
John Boyer: December 10th?
Erik Bruchez: Fine.
Leigh Klotz: OK.
Uli Lissé: OK.
John Boyer: OK, with apologies to Steven, December 10th.
Leigh Klotz: And the time?
John Boyer: December 10th, 10:00AM EST-12:00 EST, 1:00 PM EST - 4:00 PM EST.

Resolution 2009-11-18.1: Next vFtF December 10th, 10:00AM EST-12:00 EST, 1:00 PM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
Steven Pemberton: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2009&month=12&day=10&hour=15&min=00&sec=0&p1=136&p2=179&p3=215

* Fix our shortname issue

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Nov/0096.html http://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions

Steven Pemberton: It's said to be hard to find XForms 1.0 in less than 10 clicks.
John Boyer: We asked for a short link for xforms10 and Ian said no.
Steven Pemberton: The writer is asking to restore the xforms shortlink to xforms11.
John Boyer: Not as chair, I think most implementations support 1.1.
Leigh Klotz: We were forced into this; they asked us to make the /xforms short link point to xforms 1.1 even before it was REC.
John Boyer: Yes, we pointed out that it would make it harder and we asked for an xforms10 short name, but the response on xforms10 was no, because they want to incent moving to xforms11. I agree with the rationale.
Steven Pemberton: OK, I'll answer.
John Boyer: Going to a new major version may present different issues. They were reluctant to let us have the minor version release.
Steven Pemberton: Yes, the shortname without the version number should give you the latest.
John Boyer: tr/xpath gives you xpath1.0. They don't have a 1.1. The major version number appears to be the dividing line for shortnames.
Steven Pemberton: The SMIL link takes you to 1.0, which is daft.
John Boyer: It would be good having the shortest names pointing to the latest versions. It's confusing to have XPath not point to XPath 2.0, as it's 3 years old.

* XForms in HTML Example will not validate


John Boyer: We have an ongoing type.
Leigh Klotz: If we want a mediatype we have to go to IETF.
Steven Pemberton: We just need a schema.
Leigh Klotz: I have the validator.nu work that Sam Ruby asked me to do, but I need to integrate the RNC integrated into XHTML 1.0 RNC again. The time I did it before was with James Clark's in Emacs and it's now GPL.
Steven Pemberton: We need a a W3C XML Schema for the W3C validator.
Leigh Klotz: When I asked Sam Ruby what to do he told me to integrate with the RNC validator one.
John Boyer: We need a W3C validator site. So I suppose we'd be using XHTML+XForms because it's XML Schema.
Steven Pemberton: Yes.

Steven Pemberton: We could use the XML Schema validator.
John Boyer: Where is the main validator?
Steven Pemberton: validator.w3.org
John Boyer: How do we get an entry on that?
Steven Pemberton: We need to create a Note that says this is the schema to use.
Leigh Klotz: I wonder if some of these like XHTML+MathML+SVG are using RNC.
Steven Pemberton: We can validate with the XML Schema validator.
John Boyer: We need to get our validator done on this page though. That's what we need to ask Sam Ruby.
Steven Pemberton: Sam Ruby doesn't have anything to do with that.
John Boyer: I raised that with HCG and they said to talk to Sam Ruby. So who is?
Leigh Klotz: It says v0.8.5 has been integrated with the validator.nu engine.

Steven Pemberton: Using the M12N schemas would be good because we can plug in with XHTML. All we need is an XSD Schema and we ask ask the W3C validator.
John Boyer: So there's a document to write, work to do to register it, and technical work to describe a schema.
Leigh Klotz: There's W3C XML Schema and Relax NG Schema.
John Boyer: So do we want XHTML1+XForms, XHTML1.1+XForms?
Steven Pemberton: RDFa used XHTML 1.1.
John Boyer: Is there just one schema for XHTML 1.1?

Leigh Klotz: For example http://s.validator.nu/xhtml10/xhtml-basic.rnc

John Boyer: The action item is about what to do: publish the document and get the schemas done.
Steven Pemberton: I'll find out what to do to get the schema into the dropdown list.

John Boyer: So, seems we need 1) technical work to create XHTML1+XForms validator, and 2) admin work to get the XHTML1+XForms validator onto validator.w3.org as a document type
John Boyer: Leigh, can you do #1?
Leigh Klotz: I can find out but I may not be the person to do the work. Steven said he'd find out what it takes first.
John Boyer: So maybe just one action item.

Action 2009-11-18.1: Steven Pemberton and Leigh Klotz to 1) technical work to create XHTML1+XForms validator, and 2) admin work to get the XHTML1+XForms validator onto validator.w3.org as a document type

John Boyer: Now, how do we respond to the email. That we are going to validate XHTML?
Leigh Klotz: We should repeat that XForms is a module and not a host language, and that we plan to publish a note with a sample XHTML integration and get the schemas hosted somewhere.
John Boyer: OK, I'll send the response.

* submission to a "new" window (and/or an iframe?)

John Boyer: People are overloading xf:load to target divs. We can talk about parity with xf:load and xf:submission, and also about the target enhancements. Nobody owns this as a feature for XForms 1.2. If nobody owns it it will not go into 1.2.
John Boyer: There's two halves: we don't have @new for submission.
Leigh Klotz: I'll do that.

Action 2009-11-18.2: Leigh Klotz to write up target=new for submission for http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/CategoryXForms12

John Boyer: People have talked about better targeting for load, not just a window but into a #id.
Leigh Klotz: I'll do that.

Action 2009-11-18.3: Leigh Klotz to write up better targeting for load, not just a window but into a #id http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/CategoryXForms12

John Boyer: The reason we changed target to targetref was that XHTML2 used target, and we didn't want a name conflict. The target attribute seemed to match this feature, so it may be the right attribute name. Or we could use the same attribute on load.
Leigh Klotz: On load it was @show=embed and @target.
John Boyer: So tehre needs to be some interplay to make them consistent.
John Boyer: So maybe replace=embed maybe for submission?

* submission progress, cancellation

John Boyer: If we can write progress into the event we might get cancellation.
Nick van: Do we use that elsewhere?
John Boyer: We have a writeable node for xforms-submit-serialize.

John Boyer: Is this something for XForms 1.2?
John Boyer: Are there XForms implementations with extensions?
Leigh Klotz: XHR has it.
Nick van: No.
Erik Bruchez: We do not have a concrete need for it, but it doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Nick van: Same here.
John Boyer: So defer? That seems reasonable.
Nick van: Yes.

* Next Call

John Boyer: Let's plan to discuss the UI events.

* IRC Minutes


* Meeting Ends