Charlie Wiecha, IBM
John Boyer, IBM
Erik Bruchez, Orbeon
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C (Chair)
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Desginers
Uli Lissé, Dreamlabs
Steven Pemberton: W3C management team are looking at our charter today. They will either give feedback, or assign reviewers today.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Jan/0005.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Jan/0014.html
Leigh Klotz: Are comments
validated?
Nick van: They aren't validated.
John Boyer: Yes, Comments and PI nodes
are outside it. The schema validator isn't it. The XML
Schema?
Leigh Klotz: The relax schema.
John Boyer: Should we put
maxOccurs=1?
Nick van: Yes.
Leigh Klotz: Owen Newnan will have
other changes.
John Boyer: Should we wait?
Leigh Klotz: It's an evergreen
document. I'll do the RNC.
Steven Pemberton: So that's
solved.
Leigh Klotz: I think
output/mediatype/@ref is ok.
Nick van: He replied to your message
and he is ok.
John Boyer: Action handlers in
repeat are repeated. The one he's talking about uses ev:target to
listen to the repeat element. So you get three action handlers,
each responding to events dispatched to the repeat element. He says
the test expects one, but that's not correct. We have another test
with the action handler outside the repeat; it would be good to
make sure we still have coverage for action handler inside repeat.
So we should change the test to say we should see three of
these.
Leigh Klotz:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Test/XForms1.1/Edition1/Chapt10/10.5/10.5.a.xhtml
John Boyer: It says you should see an
xforms-scroll-first with index set to 1.
Steven Pemberton: I can't see what
difference it would make.
John Boyer: It says you should see
one, but you see three. Which is what he should see. So he asks if
the actions inside a repeat get repeated. These are inside groups
inside repeat, so it's even clearer. The two possible fixes are (1)
move action out of repeat or (2) change message to say "3
xforms-scroll-first messages."
Steven Pemberton: This test is testing
the scroll-first event.
John Boyer: And scroll-last.
Steven Pemberton: The nesting isn't
part of the test.
John Boyer: We get coverage from tests
for things outside of their named feature, for example
ev:observer.
Steven Pemberton: So the easiest fix
is to change the label.
John Boyer: Right. 3
xforms-scroll-first and three xforms-scroll-last. We have action
outside repeat elsewhere.
John Boyer: I vote going for the
easiest change.
Nick van: You may have implementations
that fail the test.
John Boyer: That's a challenge. Some
may implement the event but not ev:observer.
Nick van: This is a combination of
ev:observer and repeat.
John Boyer: Anybody who passes now
will have most of that sophistication anyone.
Nick van: Those attaching only one
action handler will now fail.
John Boyer: Right, but they're not
following the spec.
Nick van: I know, but still.
Leigh Klotz: Now that we know it's at
variance with the spec, we need to fix it somehow.
John Boyer: Chiba will now pass the
test.
Nick van: Some implementations may
fail.
Leigh Klotz: We'll have at least two
correct implementations for this.
Resolution 2010-01-13.1: We change the label in test 10.5.a to say "3" instead of "2" messages.
Leigh Klotz: Are these done?
John Boyer: 5.2.1abc are done.
Nick van: I reported this at the
F2F as well.
Charlie Wiecha: I think this one is
done as well.
Leigh Klotz: OK so this one's done.
That's all we need to test.
John Boyer: We didn't do
anything.
Steven Pemberton: He's saying you
can't get invalid for normalizedString.
John Boyer: Erik and I agreed that
it's correct; you can't produce an xforms-invalid for this. Is
there any content that could?
Steven Pemberton: He says not for
normalizedString and there's no invalid character for string.
John Boyer: Yes, as long as it's
well-formed XML.
John Boyer: Do we have the invalid
case for string?
Steven Pemberton: No
Nick van: The text says everything but
string.
John Boyer: That's in 5.1.a. So we
should say "except normalizedString."
Resolution 2010-01-13.2: We change 5.1.b to add normalizedString as an exception to xforms-invalid test, as in 5.1.a (for string).
Nick van: He says it for token as
well. I think space isn't allowed.
Leigh Klotz: I think it's normalized.
It's NMTOKEN that doesn't allow internal spaces.
John Boyer: OK I'll fix it.
Leigh Klotz: I responded to Joern.
John Boyer: I think Ubiquity has an
issue with this.
Nick van: Ah, the action is inside the
instance data.
Nick van: Also the event is being
dispatched to the wrong element as it goes to the parent. If you
put the action in the model, the custom event should go to the
model.
John Boyer: This is trying to test an
event which bubbles. So we should dispatch the event to the
xf:instance itself and then the action handler can be siblings of
instance, because they will get the event as it bubbles to the
model.
Steven Pemberton: What are we trying
to do.
John Boyer: The label says "custom
event that bubbles."
Steven Pemberton: We don't need an
instance at all really.
John Boyer: We can attach the
id="gohere" to the instance.
Leigh Klotz: The xf:instance element,
not the instance.
John Boyer: Yes. Then we put the
action as a sibling to xf:instance.
Steven Pemberton: So how does that
match with "instance data is obtained by copying."
Leigh Klotz: That's just explaining
why we can't have action handlers in the instance.
Steven Pemberton: Or put it in the
group.
John Boyer: We only have to test that
it bubbles. So put the listener as a model child. It will bubble
from the xf:instance to the model.
Steven Pemberton: At the moment we
produce two messages.
John Boyer: So we need a second
handler.
Steven Pemberton: One on model and one
on head.
John Boyer: They can both be in the
model, but one needs to be ev:observer on xf:instance.
Steven Pemberton: That's good.
John Boyer: So
ev:observer="gohere"
Steven Pemberton: So just move it out
of the instance.
John Boyer: Right. I moved it and left
one blank.
Resolution 2010-01-13.3: We target the event at xf:instance and move action handlers to a siblings of xf:instance.
John Boyer: I'll respond to
Joern.
Steven Pemberton: And Paul
Butcher.
John Boyer: I'll do that on
Ubiquity.
Leigh Klotz: I need to go back on
the ampersand issue and the idref issue.
John Boyer: Why are we calling them
idrefs? The control attribute of setfocus for example. Maybe it's
not an idref. A control can be repeated. The issue is that
technically they are idrefs, but they are also ids.
Leigh Klotz: I think they are IDREFs;
your form will fail.
John Boyer: No, one of our common
attributes is ID.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xforms-20091020/#structure-attrs-common
Action 2010-01-13.1: Leigh Klotz to investigate ID in XForms 1.1 RNC Schema http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xforms-20091020/#structure-attrs-common
John Boyer: What about the XML
Schema?
Leigh Klotz: It would show up in the
XHTML integration.
John Boyer: In common attributes it
includes name="id" so everything that uses common attributes get
id.
Action 2010-01-13.2: Leigh Klotz to investigate use of ampersand in RNC Schema.
Steven Pemberton: What are our
plans?
Leigh Klotz: We can publish it in the
zip now, or we can put it in the URL location again.
Steven Pemberton: Not in TR
space.
John Boyer: We were going to create a
separate space with elaborated directory structure. At some point
we can move the link pointers in XForms 1.1 there, in errata. For
some reason we put the XForms 1.1 schema in /2007 space, so when
the RelaxNG schema came along I put it there as a Zip file. XForms
1.1 points to both of them in the /2007 directory. They're not in
TR space and they're referenced by the spec.
Leigh Klotz: We can put it in /2007 or
not, but not in a zip file.
John Boyer: /2007 is messy. So we
should use a better structure.
Leigh Klotz: So we can publish the new ZIP at the current location, and we can publish the XForms for XHTML stuff at our convenience.
Action 2010-01-13.3: John Boyer to publish xforms11.zip from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Jan/0011.html in current zip location.
Action 2010-01-13.4: John Boyer to publish files from xhtml+xforms11.zip from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Jan/0011.html as individual files in TBD location for testing.
John Boyer: Test 4.3.6.a needs to
be changed.
Leigh Klotz: John said that
presentation of text other than labels and messages (such as in a
group) outside of labels is an issue for the host language.
John Boyer: For example in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Jan/0007.html
to get ODF to include XForms form controls in the future, their
text and form control layers are different layers.
Leigh Klotz: It's not all form
controls, just group, case, and repeat.
John Boyer: I don't know how the ODF
thing will get decided but it seems like not a good idea to make an
addition to change the schema now from what the spec and XML Schema
says. Our XML schema isn't optimal, but if you look at UI Content,
it says that it can be a number of outputs; if you look at label,
help, hint, alert, and message, they are complexType mixed="true".
Those five specific elements can mix it. The spec is right and the
schema is right. I don't know how to say if it's easier to say that
the definition of UI.Content is where the mixed="true" is coming
from. Maybe you can't do that.
Leigh Klotz: You can, but this is a
question of what we want to do, not how.
John Boyer: I'd advocate that we not
open up text content in container form controls.
Steven Pemberton: What do we do?
Charlie Wiecha: Fix the test
case.
Leigh Klotz: Yes.
Steven Pemberton: 4.6.3.a
John Boyer: I'll fix it right now.
Resolution 2010-01-13.4: We fix 4.6.3.a to use group/label/text() instead of group/text().