W3C Forms teleconference January 6, 2010

* Present

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

* Agenda


* Previous Minutes

Previous minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Dec/0021.html IRC supplement: http://www.w3.org/2009/12/09-forms-minutes.html

* Administration

Steven Pemberton: Thank you to John for the many years as chair.

* Recharter

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.

* XForms RNC Schema


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.)

* Meeting Ends

* IRC Log