See also: IRC log
<Schnitz> hi
<Steven> (Zakim is very slow today)
<Charlie> * thanks, steven
<markbirbeck> joining in just a moment
<lars> I hear a lot of noise on the line, anyone else having problems?
<Steven> Meeting: Forms WG Weekly Meeting
<Steven> Chair: John
<Steven> Scribe: jturner
we don't
<Charlie> Steven: we're adding inputmode to xhtml 1.1 but need implementer reports for it to stay
<Charlie> Mark: we don't have it but are looking into it
<John_Boyer> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Jul/0041.html
<Schnitz> John: Please check soon
<Schnitz> John: Steven will chair when I am unavail. If we have calls
<Schnitz> John: do we have a page for the FtF?
<Steven> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/09/ftf/
<Schnitz> Hi uli
<Schnitz> John: largely ready
<Schnitz> John: need to change link to test suite
<Schnitz> John: simple, will be done fast, second bit, www-forms-editor we have an email to request the version attribute
<Schnitz> yep
<Schnitz> scribe: schnitz
<scribe> scribe: Schnitz
Resolution: add version attribute to XForms 1.0 Third Ed.
<lars> bad zakim
Steven: do we have an errata page for Third Ed.?
John: That is right, we need to create one
<scribe> ACTION: John to add version attribute to XForms 1.0 Third Edition [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/11-forms-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: John to start an errata page for XForms 1.0 3rd Ed. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/11-forms-minutes.html#action02]
John: Moving on to XForms
1.1...
... There is one issue (103?105?... Steve Speicher)... there
actually two issues... I would like to split them
... I can't forward it, its deleted in my mailbox
... Steven, if I go into the archive, can I reply and change
the "to" line, will Shane's system understand?
<scribe> ACTION: Steven to find that message and to send it twice [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/11-forms-minutes.html#action03]
John: its under misc
(looking for message)
issue found
number 5?
ok number 5 to be trashed once splitted
John: The announcement went out, I would like to correct, do not simply reply, but reply-all, so everyone sees the comments
sure
John: get your act together and submit rather sooner than later :-)
John: Charter confusion
... XForms 1.1., XForms-T, XHTML 2.0 as deliverables
... We thought that XForms 1.2 was seperate from XForms-T
... XForms 1.2 is still undefined in terms of milestones
... Its not clear to me what we can do in an XForms 1.2 other
than supporting XForms-T
... And if we don't start on XForms 2, we miss these
milestones
<John_Boyer> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/
John: 1st Public WD end of this
year, LC next year
... 6 Months from 1st WD to LC is unrealistic
... I am proposing that XForms-T *is* XForms 1.2
Markbirbeck: Lots of things I
would like see in XForms-T, but, the naming isn't right,
therefore I have a hard time putting time into it, and 2), the
relationship with the HTML-WG is very draining
... However, that simplification area is important, but the
current context is too difficult, what do others think
about?
Schnitz, +1 with Markbirbeck
John: the task force is about
mapping whatever we have into what is being done in the HTML
WG, they might do that or not, we should make technical
decisions based on that, though
... Custom controls...
Markbirbeck: is that 2.0 or 1.2?
John: IF custom controls can be combined with something that is simple to author, then its a 1.2 issue, IMO
Markbirbeck: I can offer time in the context that Schnitz and John proposed...
yep
<Nick> If that is the course I can make some time free for that too
<scribe> ACTION: Editorial Ownership of the Former XForms Transitional work goes to Mark Birbeck and Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/11-forms-minutes.html#action04]
Resolution: XForms Transitional will be merged with XForms 1.2
<Nick> (if it is simplification, custom controls,..)
yes, please nick!
<Nick> can do, with some help
<markbirbeck> great!
<jturner> i would give a little help too if necessary
Resolution: Co-editors of XForms 1.2, former XForms Transitional, are Mark Birbeck, Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer and Nick Van Den Bleeken
jturner, ok, good to know...
John: anything with the Joint Task Force seemed to be things we would have to do to XForms, instead of the HTML side making changing
Markbirbeck: The problem already
is what we mean by architectural consistency...
... For us, MVC is a core idea here, and they dispute that, but
still think its architecturally consistent, which of course
won't make sense
:-)
<lars> zakim appears to be emotional as well, dropped me again
John: would be possible for the editors for to be also the TF members?
Schnitz, +1
Markbirbeck: are there any meetings plans yet
John: no, we need members, they will then define communication
Markbirbeck, +1
<Charlie> Thank you all
Nick_van_den_Bleeken, +1
John: thank you
Resolution: The three current co-editors of XForms 1.2, formerly XForms Transitional, will also be the three members of the Joint Forms TF from the Forms WG side
John: Everyone, please check with the action item list, and please make progress on it this week
(John explains details in handling the Action item lists)
<Steven> Tell me if you need an account
John: get rid of 151?
... Steven, can you look at this?
<Zakim> Steven, you wanted to ask who has implemented inputmode
<scribe> ACTION: Steven to look whether Issue 151 and Issue 106 are identical, and if so, get rid of Issue 151 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/11-forms-minutes.html#action05]
John: we already agreed to
rewriting text of getting rid of homogeneous collection
... So we can just go ahead here
... We need an action to get rid of homogeneous collection
(checking)?
... investigating
There is an old action item on Mark
John: thats defunct
... we need a new action item
<lars> zakim unmute me
<scribe> ACTION: Eliminate Wording on homogeneous collection on repeat, assigned to Ulrich Nicolas Lisse [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/11-forms-minutes.html#action06]
John: moving on...
John: simple run-by
Issue 91?
(checking)
John: Any objection me just going forward?
<Steven> COnmfirmed that issue 151 was a reply to 106
<Steven> I have merged them
Resolution: John to follow as proposed in Issue 91
<scribe> ACTION: John to address Issue 91 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/11-forms-minutes.html#action07]
<unl> john, issue 91 is in Multi-issue, not in Controls
Containing *or compound* document profile to add foreign namespace decl.
John: ok
Resolution: Issue 127 accepted
<scribe> ACTION: John to move forward with Issue 127 as proposed by Issue 127 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/11-forms-minutes.html#action08]
John: issue for me
(John reading wording)
John: the wording is
misleading
... information is redundant
... I propose to shoot that Paragraph
<Charlie> sounds good
John: any objection
No objection
<scribe> ACTION: John to address Issue 23 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/11-forms-minutes.html#action09]
John: Steve says he miss a
normative ref to what the HTTP verb actually is
... It turns out that HTTP verb is used quite a bit
... But we don't say that in our spec
... Steven, had similar problems to Steve
intuitive or misleading...
Steven: we need to define it properly
John: +1
... I really think that a lot of problems will be cleared up
when under submission options that table should probably say
what the default submission verb is to be and show a default
string
<John_Boyer> It would be clearer if the fourth column of the submission options table werernentitled "Default Submission Verb" and then the table entries were of the formrn"POST" (HTTP POST or equivalent).
John: I propose wording
there...
... Resolution?
Any objections?
No, fine
Steven: we should also add a sentence if free-floating text what we me mean by verb
John: Yes, 1+
<lars> http 1.1 sect 5.1 request line / 5.1.1 method would be the reference
John: Yes, its about not resolving the final wording now, but that we resolve that we assign an action to come up with wording at those places for this
+1
Time is up
John: We need text similar how SOAP and WSDL is connecting its abstract concept to HTTP
Markbirbeck: We could use method as the element name
Lars: I guess its ok
John: please continue on the mailing list...
Steven: please kick off...
<Nick> bye
<scribe> ACTION: John to kick off on mailing list discussion on Issue 103 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/11-forms-minutes.html#action10]
<Blake> quit
John_Boyer, thanks, I'll head off... r u and Steven fine with generating minutes of this?
<John_Boyer> yes
ok, bye
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/CH/Ch/ Succeeded: s/verison/version/ Succeeded: s/XHTML/XForms/ Succeeded: s/sent/send/ Succeeded: s/will/would/ Succeeded: s/hits/this/ Succeeded: s/tree/three/ Found Scribe: jturner Inferring ScribeNick: jturner Found Scribe: schnitz Inferring ScribeNick: Schnitz Found Scribe: Schnitz Inferring ScribeNick: Schnitz Scribes: jturner, schnitz ScribeNicks: jturner, Schnitz Default Present: John_Boyer, +49.308.322.aaaa, jturner, wellsk, Schnitz, +091211aabb, Rafael, Charlie, Nick_van_den_Bleeken, Steven, +1.541.754.aacc, Blake, +6aadd, lars, markbirbeck, ebruchez, [IPcaller], +49.336.293.aaee Present: John_Boyer +49.308.322.aaaa jturner wellsk Schnitz +091211aabb Rafael Charlie Nick_van_den_Bleeken Steven +1.541.754.aacc Blake +6aadd lars markbirbeck ebruchez [IPcaller] +49.336.293.aaee Regrets: MarkS Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Jul/0041.html Got date from IRC log name: 11 Jul 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/07/11-forms-minutes.html People with action items: editorial eliminate john steven WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]