Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Erik Bruchez, Orbeon
Steven Pemberton, CWI/W3C (chair)
Philip Fennell, MarkLogic [irc]
Kurt Cagle, Invited Expert
Dan McCreary, Invited Expert
Alain Couthures, AgenceXML
Steven Pemberton: There is a TPAC
at the end of the year. Do we want more than that?
Kurt Cagle: How many people are going
to Balisage?
Steven Pemberton: I can't make August.
Prague would have been nice.
Nick van: It's fully booked.
Leigh Klotz: TPAC is in Santa Clara
again I think.
Steven Pemberton: So where and when
for next F2F, or virtual?
Nick van: I'd like to have one in the
first half of the year.
Steven Pemberton: Or in
Amsterdam.
Nick van: Or the US this year.
Kurt Cagle: SemTech, in the Bay
Area.
Erik Bruchez: June 5-9, downtown San
Francisco.
Steven Pemberton: It's not necessarily
an XForms-allied conference.
Kurt Cagle: Dan McCreary and I will be
going, but it's not strongly affiliated.
Steven Pemberton: San Francisco is a
good location, but we need a host.
Leigh Klotz: I can host and I'm sure
Erik would be ahppy to have it here.
Steven Pemberton: Normally we meet 3
or 4 days.
Nick van: I can't leave home the end
of July.
Steven Pemberton: So maybe the
beginning of June, on the west coast.
Steven Pemberton: And do we need a
one-day virtual meeting?
Erik Bruchez: That sounds fine.
Progress is a little slow and we've made significant progress in a
few hours.
Steven Pemberton: Others aren't here
right now so let's pick just a tentative date for a one-day
meeting. March 10th? Let's pencil that in.
Steven Pemberton: It's time to plan
this. We're late on our tiemline. We could use the time from now to
the one-day meeting.
Steven Pemberton: We ought to be able
to do it earlier, but having the meeting to discuss remaining
issues would be a good idea. With four F2F per year we used those
as heartbeat.
Kurt Cagle: Then March release and
June/July release.
Steven Pemberton: Then by beginning of
March we should have a draft to publish after. Sounds good?
Kurt Cagle: Sounds good to me.
Steven Pemberton: Alright.
Steven Pemberton: I'm representing XForms for this meeting in Pisa.
Steven Pemberton: Last week I said
we'd raise it at the HCG. There will be a discussion there in 10
days time. Leigh, can you call?
Leigh Klotz: When is it?
Steven Pemberton: Friday week, an hour
earlier than xml-cg.
Kurt Cagle: I'd like to join.
Steven Pemberton: It's member only,
but we invite others. Kurt, you're more than welcome to join.
Nick van: I've been working on
XPath 2.0 module
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.2/modules/xpath20/index-all.html
Nick van: We need to discuss the XPath
2.0 evaluation context. It's now more well-defined which things are
stable. I don't think we made a decision yet.
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.2/modules/xpath20/index-all.html#expr-dynamic-context
A number of functions specified in [Functions and Operators] are defined to be stableFO, meaning that if they are called twice during the same execution scopeFO, with the same arguments, then they return the same results...
Kurt Cagle: I've been watching
Michael's work with XSLT 2.1 into 3.0. There will be XPath 3.0 and
XQuery 3.0. Do we need to look at this with regard to XForms? Could
we harmonize the versions? The downside is that we'd need the XPath
3.0 implementation supported. Changes between 2 and 3 aren't that
radical. Is it worth thinking of XForms 3.0?
Steven Pemberton: We're not chartered
to to that.
Kurt Cagle: For the future.
Nick van: Wasn't the rationale because
the XQuery / XSLT / XPath are all from the same WG, and they share
the same function library? Do we want to be on the same release
track?
Kurt Cagle: The downside is that it
does put them on the schedule.
Steven Pemberton: In the past we've
trailed them so we get solidified implementations. We didn't put
XPath 2.0 in until we had implementations, so there is some
advantage to trailing.
Erik Bruchez: We're very conservative
with version numbers. I think XForms 1.1 was supposed to be quick
and it took 6 years.
Steven Pemberton: I believe you're
suggesting we should call it XForms 2.0 if we use XPath 2.0 and
keep our version numbering in line.
Kurt Cagle: I think it's at least
worth thinking about. I think 1.1-1.2-1.3 indicates XPath
1.0.
Steven Pemberton: It has a certain
charm of argumentation. Erik, you were thinking of XForms 2?
Erik Bruchez: Yes, but I don't know
about 3.
Steven Pemberton: Would anybody
object?
Leigh Klotz: Is XPath 2 going to be
required or optional?
Erik Bruchez: I think it's going to be
optional.
Leigh Klotz: So we'd change our
version number because of an optional feature?
Steven Pemberton: Eventually we
would.
Leigh Klotz: So XForms 1.2 would have
optional XPath 2.0 but XForms 2.0 would have required XPath
2.0.
Steven Pemberton: Who wants it to be
optional?
Nick van: John and maybe Alain.
Alain Couthures: No, I think it is a
good idea.
Erik Bruchez: There's been a lag, but
we never supported XPath 2.0 in our implementation of XForms. It's
a huge benefit.
Kurt Cagle: With XQuery in the
browser, we're beginning to see more solid near or at XPath 2.0
implementations in the browser, plus Orbeon. The argument from the
browser side is weak. It's the non-HTML implementations that might
be more of an issue.
Steven Pemberton: I propose that we
discuss this with John and point out we're all in favor of XPath
2.0 as required. OK?
Alain Couthures: OK
Kurt Cagle: There hasn't been a lot
of activity. There was a short meeting, possibly without a quorum.
The activity has been mostly looking at the use cases. There is a
use case #6 which is XForms related and I'm working on that and
I'll send it here.
Steven Pemberton: What are the main
issues being discussed?
Kurt Cagle: Use cases for combinations
of XML and HTML and places where they force requirements on one or
another, such as XML Data Islands in Use Case 4. Other cases are
essentially XML embedding HTML, HTML embedding XML, script elements
and bindings. There's been nothing definitive other than where use
cases involve interactions between the two. The HTML side has been
trying to minimize cases. Michael Kay may be less involved, but
he's been writing XML support arguments. Another issue is where
HTML ends and XHTML begins, and where you can't use XML within
HTML. That's not been fully fleshed out, but it's Use Case #5.
Those are in development, and we'll discuss those next week.
Leigh Klotz: And XBL touches on that
as well.
Kurt Cagle: Absolutely. And at what
point in the process can we deal with mixed embedded content.
xf:repeat, etc.
Steven Pemberton: So we should draw
their attention to this.
Kurt Cagle: The biggest issue is XBL
namespace removal.
Leigh Klotz: I did RNC, and Owen
Newnan did XSD and Philip did NVDL, and you suggested we look at
XHTML Modularization. So we need to pick one.
Steven Pemberton: We need to define
where our bits go in XHTML Modularization.
Leigh Klotz: We can't use DTD's.
Steven Pemberton: We can use XSD and
Relax.
Leigh Klotz: We've got those
both.
Steven Pemberton: So you'd like to
talk with Shane?
Leigh Klotz: Yes.
Steven Pemberton: Let's make that a
real action.
ACTION-1775 Steven Pemberton and Leigh Klotz to contact Shane McCarron about using M12N for HTML+XForms.
ACTION-1776 Steven Pemberton to invite Leigh and Kurt to HCG XBL meeting.