Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C (chair)
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Uli Lissé, DreamLabs
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
John Boyer, IBM
Charlie Wiecha, IBM
Steven Pemberton: Thank you to John for the many years as chair.
Steven Pemberton: Our rechartering
will be coming through soon so we will be extended. They wanted
more explicit comments about XForms 2.0. I'll take those notes from
the wiki for the charter, and point to the wiki as well. They asked
about XForms for XHTML.
Leigh Klotz: I suggested that week
that we write down current practice of Orbeon, Chiba, PicoForms,
Ubiquity, XSLTForms etc. I wrote an RNC schema describing the
integration with XHTML. So that would be XForms for XHTML.
Steven Pemberton: So we would need to
put that in the charter.
John Boyer: I sent a note to you and
Phillipe about adding that language to the charter. That may be
where the question is coming from.
Steven Pemberton: I can work that into
the charter tomorrow and send it off to W3M for consideration at
their next call. So we're happy with that, carrying on with XForms
for HTML?
Charlie Wiecha: It's not the simple
syntax, but documenting how people are using XForms for HTML.
John Boyer: It seems a good idea to
get the current practice out under the name XForms for HTML; we can
continue to mature it later, and not start with the simplified
syntax. In part this proposal comes from Leigh's work on the
validator for XHTML+XForms, with a Rec-track document for it.
Steven Pemberton: That sounds like a
very good approach indeed; I thoroughly support that. It reflects a
change in approach; do we stay in the same Rec-track line?
Leigh Klotz: We had a similar shift
between the first draft and second draft of XForms 1.0; the goals
remained, but we switched from a simple-syntax type to an XPath/XML
Schema syntax.
Steven Pemberton: Sounds ok then.
Charlie Wiecha: What are the next
steps for the charter after you update it?
Steven Pemberton: We submit it to W3M
again; they formally review it. Then it goes out to the AC, before
the March meeting.
Charlie Wiecha: So the extension is
until we renew.
Steven Pemberton: We have a F2F right
after the charter.
Nick van: Yes.
Steven Pemberton: Is the plan to have
it around with the AC meeting in Boston?
Nick van: We though about Europe but
John proposed Victoria.
Leigh Klotz: Steven, you said we
should wait for new members, but with the charter by March we won't
have time.
Steven Pemberton: Good point. We could
include the dates of the first planned F2F in the charter.
Steven Pemberton: Who would we try
to get to join?
Leigh Klotz: We can start with the
group we asked for testimonials.
Charlie Wiecha: Maybe Yahoo again.
Leigh Klotz: Note the change to the
charter proposal for time requirements.
John Boyer: There's the editorial team
requirements and then others with less requirement.
John Boyer: You might try inviting
some more experts.
Steven Pemberton: W3C got some funding
from ISOC so that might help. We might also do an interest
group.
Leigh Klotz: I think we should extend
invitations to the open-source individuals.
Nick van: Like eXist.
Leigh Klotz: And XSLTForms.
Charlie Wiecha: And AmpleSDK.
John Boyer: Dan MacCreary, Kurt
Cagle.
Steven Pemberton: There's also an
option to start an interest group.
Leigh Klotz: And I bet Erik has some
names representitave of his user community.
Leigh Klotz: Those folks would be good
to get in the WG, because they're quite involved in XForms. People
who are mailing list participants on the various implementation
lists might be better candidates for the interest group.
John Boyer: What is the process for
Invited Experts?
Steven Pemberton: They have to agree
to patent policy, then be invited by W3M.
John Boyer: The IG doesn't carry a
patent policy.
Steven Pemberton: In the short term we
should ask if they are interested.
Steven Pemberton: Any more on
rechartering?
Nick van: Can we decide on the virtual
vs. real F2F soon, and location?
Steven Pemberton: Let's decide now. We
have the AC meeting just before the F2F. So do we want to do
Boston, Europe, or Virtual?
John Boyer: Or Victoria.
Steven Pemberton: I will be at the AC
meeting. So I could fly to Victoria.
Charlie Wiecha: That uses up an extra
trip for you?
Steven Pemberton: Yes, doing it in
Boston would be good for me.
Charlie Wiecha: TPAC is in
France?
Nick van: I heard Brussels, but it's
not confirmed.
Steven Pemberton: It's not listed
yet.
John Boyer: But it's Europe?
Nick van: Last year it was US, so
yes.
John Boyer: We'd need a host for
Boston.
Charlie Wiecha: I can come up with
one.
Steven Pemberton: Maybe even a room at
MIT.
John Boyer: Boston might be easier for
me to get travel approval than Europe.
Charlie Wiecha: Yes, it's good for NA
since TPAC is in Europe.
Steven Pemberton: Charlie, John are OK
with Boston.
Nick van: Boston or Victoria is the
same.
Uli Lissé: I don't care.
Leigh Klotz: Sure, except for the
weather.
Uli Lissé: I would prefer
Victoria, but...
John Boyer: It might be rainy
season.
Steven Pemberton: I'll take that as a
decision for Boston.
Steven Pemberton: Charlie, can you
inquire about hosting for the week of the 22nd? So that would be
March 24.
Charlie Wiecha: Three days?
Steven Pemberton: I'd prefer to leave
on Friday, so March 24-25-26.
Steven Pemberton: Are we agreed?
John Boyer: Sounds good.
Resolution 2010-01-6.1: Next F2F in Boston in conjunction with AC Meeting, March 24-26.
Action 2010-01-6.1: Steven Pemberton to inquire about meeting room at MIT for F2F in conjunction with AC Meeting, March 24-26.
Action 2010-01-6.2: Charlie Wiecha to inquire about meeting room near Cambridge, MA for F2F in conjunction with AC Meeting, March 24-26.
Leigh Klotz: I propose we put the
changes in the Relax NG document, and publish the XHTML parts in
XForms for XHTML.
John Boyer: Note that we got some
feedback on the RELAXNG schema on www-forms-editor:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2009Dec/0007.html
Action 2010-01-6.3: Leigh Klotz to investigate feedback on the RELAXNG schema on www-forms-editor: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2009Dec/0007.html
Steven Pemberton: These comments
are detailed.
Steven Pemberton: THey are from ISO SC
34. http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/
Leigh Klotz: I sent out a call for
comments and Makoto Murata also invited others.
Steven Pemberton: Here is the working
group page. http://dsdl.org/
Leigh Klotz: I'll read and comment;
others should as well.
John Boyer: They want more info on
the chameleon schema. I think we want "tell us more about it." We
might still lead to no namespace qualifiction.
Leigh Klotz: I'd say since namespaces
are not significant to the model, we offer it as a convenience for
those who might profile our specification.
John Boyer: The highly-federated data
qualification features of XForms are not necessary for markup
languages. There's pushback on namespaces right now, and it's not
necessary for our technology to suffer.
Leigh Klotz: I've done the
extension changes already. The start element is in the XHTML+XForms
schema. I'll have to address the other issues in detail.
John Boyer: What does "URI
Addressible" mean here?
Leigh Klotz: They want the files, not
the Zip files.
John Boyer: So we can put them
somewhere else.
Steven Pemberton: In our MarkUp
space.
Steven Pemberton: I'm not a great fan
of using dated URIs for these, and use MarkUp/Forms/Schema
John Boyer: With versions.
Leigh Klotz: We can leave the Zip file
where it is without changing XForms 1.1 and put the XHTML+XForms
schema in the new location.
Leigh Klotz: I'd like to get them to
look at the integration.
John Boyer: I have
MarkUp/Forms/Schema. We can have XForms 1.1, XForms 1.2, XForms
2.0. Then where do we put XHTML+XForms? A separate directory?
Leigh Klotz: The XHTML+XForms schema
will include it via a relative reference so it will work
offsite.
John Boyer: I'll create XForms 1.1,
XForms 1.2, and XForms 2.0, and expand the zip files.
Leigh Klotz: Should we review these
changes?
John Boyer: I thought we had reviewed
them already, such as moving UI Common.
Leigh Klotz: That was the test suite,
right?
John Boyer: We did those, but we
agreed to look at the RNC changes.
Leigh Klotz: They are listed in the
changelog of the xforms-nons-11.rnc and also xforms-11.rnc (for
repeat attributes).
John Boyer: Where did you put the
repeat elements?
Leigh Klotz: table stuff, etc. See the
list.
John Boyer: And what do they
repeat?
Leigh Klotz: Uh, we resolved it.
John Boyer: It doesn't make much sense
to put them on p because you don't repeat the p.
Leigh Klotz: Picoforms implements them
and I think Chiba.
Nick van: We use them on tbody and
table.
John Boyer: What does it repeat on
table?
Nick van: It repeats the content. It's
not a big problem, because you can have multiple tbody.
Steven Pemberton: Yes.
John Boyer: It might be a good idea to
stick with what the spec says.
Leigh Klotz: It doesn't say.
John Boyer: It says what's repeated
though.
Leigh Klotz: It's solved.
John Boyer: So it might go on ol, and
ul, but not li.
Leigh Klotz: It should be doing what's
implemented.
Nick van: I think we only use it on
ol, ul, table, and tbody. You could put it on li to repeat content.
It could be useful on a div.
Leigh Klotz: Add span to that list and
it may be enough.
John Boyer: Yes.
Action 2010-01-6.4: Leigh Klotz to update repeat attributes on XHTML+XForms to ol, ul, table, tbody, li, and div and do two different zip files (one for XHTML+XForms with files at toplevel and one for XForms11 with just the xforms11 files.)