W3C Forms teleconference March 17, 2010

* Present

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

* Agenda


* Previous Minutes

* No Call Next Week



Steven Pemberton: We have been asked to discuss the upcoming TPAC, at Lyon, November 1-5.
Steven Pemberton: I need to fill out our preferences for joint meetings, dates, overlap, etc. How many will attend?
Charlie Wiecha: I will probably attend.
Steven Pemberton: So, eight.
John Boyer: We may have new members.
Steven Pemberton: Nick would prefer Monday and Tuesday for flights.
Steven Pemberton: Are we flexible about the meeting days?
Charlie Wiecha: Yes, as we can stay afterwards.
Steven Pemberton: Is there any WG we want to meet up with? No?
Steven Pemberton: Is there any membership overlap with another group?
Charlie Wiecha: HTML.
Steven Pemberton: And how many would attend the AC meeting? Just me.

* Next FtF

Next F2F in Boston in conjunction with AC Meeting, March 24-26, 2010 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/FtF_2010_03_24_Agenda

Charlie Wiecha: Let's meet at 1 Rogers Street lobby at 8:30 AM Wednesday.

* Tim Bray News


Leigh Klotz: I think we should engage in discussion with Tim Bray on explaining how XForms is part of the XML universe: XQuery, XSLT 2.0, XPath 2.0, etc. What HTML5 does is orthogonal, as XForms presents a path to the sea for XML data.
Steven Pemberton: Who should talk?
Leigh Klotz: I would be happy just to make comments on his blog about this point, which I've made before.
Steven Pemberton: OK.

* XML Prague

http://www.xmlprague.cz/2010/sessions.html http://tinyurl.com/xmlprague2010

Erik Bruchez: The conference seems to have gone well. There was a talk by Liam Quinn on "The Future of XML at W3C." I think the proceedings are interesting.
Nick van: The video presentations are also online from last year; maybe this year will be on soon.
Steven Pemberton: We are in Interaction Domain with HTML, WebApps, SVG. I wonder if we'd be better placed in the XML domain. Would it matter?
John Boyer: I think it makes sense.
Erik Bruchez: We mentioned it in the charter, the affinity with XQuery, etc.
Charlie Wiecha: Sounds like a good approach.
Steven Pemberton: I'll discuss it.

* Rechartering


Steven Pemberton: There hasn't been any news as W3C is busy with the AC meeting. It looks good.
Erik Bruchez: Where there formal objections?
Steven Pemberton: I see, one supports charter only if changes are adopted. "Alongside OCF, I also propose ISO-SC34 liaison and for RelaxNG and NVDL schemas. ... XPath 2.0, XML Schema 1.1"
Nick van: Leigh's working on the RNG and NVDL is just a wrapper.
Leigh Klotz: Maybe he wants us to use RNG for XForms instance validation.
Charlie Wiecha: I think it's just schemas for editors.
Steven Pemberton: Any objections?
Leigh Klotz: What about XML Schema 1.1? Does he want XML Schema 1.1 for XForms, or XForms support for XML Schema 1.1 validation of instances?
Erik Bruchez: I'd like to contact him and make sure. Some we plan to do. There are questions on XML Schema 1.1. The biggest issue is the ISO liaison.
Leigh Klotz: I think the Mahamoud might be the liaison, as he is currently the ISO-034 liaison on the ISO side: http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison
Steven Pemberton: All we may have to do is mention the group. We've had official review from ISO-SC34 before, I believe.
Erik Bruchez: Doesn't that imply we'd have to do some work with them?
Steven Pemberton: Only if it's called upon. A liaison is for an external group that has some relation with our work. It doesn't require meetings.
Leigh Klotz: It seems to me that he's asking to do the work.
Steven Pemberton: Is everybody OK with the changes? Please speak now if you have a problem with any of them.

Resolution 2010-03-17.1: We agree with Mohamed Zergaoui's comments on the Forms WG Rechartering.

* Invited Experts

Steven Pemberton: Are now going to invite experts?
John Boyer: We should wait until the call for participation.
Steven Pemberton: Yes. Kurt Cagle, Dan MacCreary, Alain Couthuries. Any others?

* Action Item Review


John Boyer: Draft forms WG charter is done. Some aren't ready: errata, test suite.
Steven Pemberton: Some of Erik's need to be removed.

* xforms:bind and @ref

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Mar/0003.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Feb/0042.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Mar/0015.html

Steven Pemberton: Since Uli's not here, let's do this at the F2F.

* XForms and Deprecating DOM* Events in DOM3 Events

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Feb/0000.html On hold for "initialization use case" discussion?

Steven Pemberton: The deprecation of DOMActivate has come up under quite active discussion two meetings in a row at the HCG. I don't see the advantage to deprecating it in the DOM Events Recommendation. It shows what to do in both cases and doesn't require DOMActivate.

John Boyer: Apparently we own XML Events now.
Steven Pemberton: It's only a binding to DOM Events.
Leigh Klotz: There's a lot to be said for interoperability of other event users on XML.
Steven Pemberton: If we defined it in XForms that would make several events, not necessarily interoperably.
Erik Bruchez: It's a plain event.
Steven Pemberton: You would have to listen to multiple ones.
Erik Bruchez: I believe even if we think it should be kept, we should follow the DOM decision, whatever it is.
Steven Pemberton: The backward compatibility issue is a problem.
Erik Bruchez: Our specification could say something about it: we could mention DOMActivate support.
Steven Pemberton: What about mixed SVG and XForms? SVG does DOMActivate as well.
Charlie Wiecha: It's a backward step from getting into other modalities.
Steven Pemberton: We can discuss it at the F2F.

* XForms initialization use case


Erik Bruchez: I think we discussed this already by mail. It's a common requirement to load more than one set of data during initialization. We can do it by launching submissions, because you may reduce latency by calling in parallel. The trick is that in many cases, we found that you need a way to wait for submissions to complete. We have an extension action called join-submissions; it waits for all submissions to terminate and is a synchronous action.
Erik Bruchez: The code example http://pastie.org/818536 lets you wait for submission to complete before before control initialization, by doing the submissions inside xforms-model-construct-done.
Leigh Klotz: Would a instance/@submission instead of instance/@src satisfy this use case without a new join?
John Boyer: We often get these done server-side and get instance population done separately as an instance.
Nick van: This is cleaner because you don't have to thread yourself.
John Boyer: So you crank up the XForms processor, the async submission, then xforms-model-construct-done? If all submissions have to be done and joined, what's the point of doing it within the lifecycle of the XForms processor instead of server-side?
Erik Bruchez: XForms is an easier tool to do this.
John Boyer: You can pre-populate a form.
Nick van: I tend to pre-populate the instance but everything is in two places.
Steven Pemberton: Hear, here.
John Boyer: It may not be fast.
Leigh Klotz: If they are GET then it's easy to cache with cache-control and etags.
John Boyer: Then just use @src.
Leigh Klotz: You can't use forms logic then.
John Boyer: The forms logic isn't available until xforms-model-construct-done.
Erik Bruchez: Leigh's right about caching. The submission gives you more power.
John Boyer: It depends on the order of the initialization sequence.
Nick van: It can be the order of send.
John Boyer: We don't specify the order.
Erik Bruchez: The order might be a problem if you use the attribute version.
Leigh Klotz: I don't agree that that changes anything because the order of send is not the same as the order of asynchronous submission response.
Erik Bruchez: OK but...
Steven Pemberton: We're out of time. See you all next week.

* IRC Minutes


* Meeting Ends