Nick van den Bleeken, Inventive Designers
Philip Fennell, MarkLogic
Alain Couthures, AgenceXML
Steven Pemberton, CWI (chair)
Leigh Klotz, Xerox (minutes)
Uli Lissé, DreamLabs
John Boyer, IBM
Alain Couthures: I will be able to check after TPAC.
Leigh Klotz: Seems like the schema
is wrong; ask John Boyer. My belief is that it is just a Schema
conformance issue.
John Boyer: We use a live XML schema
engine that isn't tweaked.
Leigh Klotz: Because we left off the
elementFormDefault="qualified" the elements are in the
wrong namespace. Before we agree, we'd like to make sure it doesn't
break any implementations.
John Boyer: I think it won't break my
implementation.
Nick van: I will update the test
suite. Do we need to create a new revision of the test suite?
Leigh Klotz: This is entirely a schema
conformance issue, no XForms.
Nick van: If we publish it do we need
an updated implementation report.
Steven Pemberton: I'm not sure the
test suite is live, but if the test reports refer to an earlier
version, maybe we should start a new version. We have that for the
next version of the spec.
Nick van: So change the test suite for
2.0, not 1.1.
Leigh Klotz: That's fine with
me.
Steven Pemberton: Hmmm...
Nick van: Did we ever publish errata
for XForms 1.1? Then we can put the new test suite there.
John Boyer: I'm not sure the test
suite is normative. I don't think we need to version the test
suite.
Nick van: Then I'll update it in
CVS.
Leigh Klotz: Isn't there a ZIP file as
well?
Nick van: I'll make the zip file as
well.
John Boyer: I'm not sure this blog
article is correct...checking XML Schema Part 0.
Nick van: The default is
unqualified.
John Boyer: When you say qualified you
can have namespace prefixes or not, but unqualified you are forced
to have no namespace prefixes. Sounds like he is getting a real
error.
Steven Pemberton: I think that is the
case.
John Boyer: It looks like putting
elementFormDefault=qualified is a safe thing to do; it's not going
to change the behavior and so we should do it. My recollection is
that qualified can have a namespace prefix or in the target
namespace.
Leigh Klotz: When you say
elementFormDefault=qualified and name="ccnumber" that ccnumber is
in the targetNamespace?
John Boyer: It is in the
name="ccnumber" in both cases. The name is not interpreted
according the defaultnamespace.
Leigh Klotz: As I recall, the name is
always in the targetNamespace because it makes no sense to do
anything otherwise. Does elementFormDefault=qualified refer to type
and other attributes in the schema?
John Boyer: Making the change does not
hurt anything, but it is correct either way.
Nick van: Then it's strange to make
the change.
John Boyer: It wouldn't be the first
time a blog is wrong.
Leigh Klotz: We should ask him to
validate the instance as a standalone file with the schema pulled
out. This has nothing to do with XForms.
John Boyer: No, he's right, we've done
it wrong. If you look carefully, the PO example doesn't declare a
default namespace. All are in empty namespace.
Nick van: I just did that in Eclipse
and elementFormDefault=qualified is needed. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#QualLocals
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#QualLocals
"All such attributes' values may each be set to unqualified or
qualified, to indicate whether or not locally declared elements and
attributes must be unqualified. ... To specify that all locally
declared elements in a schema must be qualified, we set the value
of http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#QualLocals
to qualified."
Steven Pemberton: We should say thanks
and we'll correct it.
John Boyer: We're not that surprised
that others have passed because we don't emphasize structural
validation; we allow structurally-invalid instances with relevance
and switch and so on, until submission.
Resolution 2011-11-2.1: We change test case
XForms Test Suite 1.1 - Test case 2.4.a to add
elementFormDefault="qualified" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2011Oct/0000.html
Action 2011-11-2.1: Steven Pemberton to reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2011Oct/0000.html saying he is right.
ACTION-1841 Nick Van Den Bleeken to update test 2.4.a according to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2011Oct/0000.html
Steven Pemberton: I found this in
October 2003:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2003OctDec/0132.html
Steven Pemberton: He called it
xml-edit instead of xml-form. He did give it a type. We did have
this which we were planning to produce at some day, as a REC-track
document. I don't recall why we didn't. I'm quite happy doing a
spec, though I'd prefer it as a Note instead of Rec-track
document.
John Boyer: How does the browser know
about this processor instruction?
Leigh Klotz: You have to have an
XForms engine in your processor.
Alain Couthures: There is already a PI
for the XForms processor.
John Boyer: Is the browser detecting
the processing instruction?
Alain Couthures: The processor.
Leigh Klotz: There's two PI's: one
says do XForms and the second says do this.
John Boyer: The browser knows about
xml-stylesheet and that turns on XSLTForms. So something has to
tell it to launch XForms.
Leigh Klotz: Or XForms looks for this.
We have done similar things in server-side processing, where PIs
tell you to put in XForms, etc.
Steven Pemberton: There is a
difference; Mikko's system knows how to put use the correct
editor.
John Boyer: So the browser knows to
run this PI based on xhtml+xml?
Nick van: It's just XML. You have to
have some kind of native extension in the browser.
John Boyer: So it says run me when you
get this content type? The PI provides information? The type= isn't
really activating anything.
Nick van: In the example, you can do
XSL-FO or use different forms. It's a bit like CSS
stylesheets.
Steven Pemberton: Yes, he modeled it
on that and implemented it in X-Smiles.
John Boyer: What does this processing
instruction give us that isn't already in there with content
type?
Nick van: You can put this in your XML
document. But you can edit only one instance at a time.
Steven Pemberton: I'm not sure the
semantics are the same for Alain.
Alain Couthures: I think they are the
same.
Leigh Klotz: Go to http://xformstest.org/klotz/2011/05/MVC/buy-test4.xml
and then press F1 and Profile and that uses the PI.
Alain Couthures: It's applied
internally. It's possible to do this without editing the form,
putting the PI in place.
Steven Pemberton: Which bit does your
PI do?
Alain Couthures: Sometimes people want
to save instance data.
Alain Couthures: The profiler is a
separate document.
Leigh Klotz: Here's how it's
loaded:
xsltforms.js:1651: s += <code><?xml-form type="application/xhtml+xml" href="</code> + Core.ROOT + <code>xsltforms_profiler.xhtml" instance="profile"?></code>;
Steven Pemberton: And it loads that
in to profile it?
Leigh Klotz: yes.
Steven Pemberton: What do we do
now? It's useful but I don't recall why we didn't go forward.
Alain Couthures: I could take an
action to edit the document.
Steven Pemberton: I'll get the latest
version and maybe the best thing would be to convert that into wiki
form.
ACTION-1843 Steven Pemberton to Convert Mikko's PI document to Wiki form