07:23:27 RRSAgent has joined #forms 07:23:27 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/09/14-forms-irc 07:23:34 rrsagent, make log public 07:23:53 Meeting: Forms WG FtF, Madrid Spain, Day 3 of 3 07:24:02 Chair: John 07:24:34 unl has joined #forms 07:25:12 rrsagent, make minutes 07:25:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/14-forms-minutes.html Steven 07:25:36 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/09/12-forms-minutes Day 1 07:25:48 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html Day 2 07:26:09 Scribe: Steven 07:26:45 ebruchez has joined #forms 07:27:12 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Sep/0054 07:27:18 Rafael has joined #forms 07:27:53 Steven has changed the topic to: Forms FtF, Madrid Spain, Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Sep/0054 07:28:36 Topic: Are readonly and other MIPs properties or enforced rules? (Issue 176) 07:28:39 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/MIPs?id=176;user=guest;selectid=176;statetype=-1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 07:28:43 rrsagent, make minutes 07:28:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/14-forms-minutes.html Steven 07:29:14 Charlie has joined #forms 07:29:20 Present: John, Uli, Charlie, Steven, Erik, Nick, Rafael, Rogelio 07:31:11 Roger has joined #forms 07:33:24 John: We need to make a choice 07:34:32 ... non-relevant nodes are allowed to be set witha setvalue' how aout readonly? 07:34:43 s/witha/with a/ 07:34:54 s/aout/about/ 07:35:45 John: Apparently setting a non-relevant node doesn't break the model encapsulation 07:35:51 ... but readonly does 07:36:57 ... so the choice is saying the model creates a readonly property that nothing else is allowed to violate 07:37:30 ... or only an annotation that affects the controls 07:39:30 STeven: It seems like we have two cow paths here, only one of which can be paved 07:39:41 ... we need to choose the one that does the least damage 07:39:55 CHarlie: Or restricts our future movements the least 07:40:00 s/CH/Ch/ 07:40:14 s/STeven/Steven 07:40:39 Present+MarkS 07:41:17 John: We want readonly at the control level as well in the future 07:41:18 I'm more focused on trying to move us in the direction we intuit now will be the correct future direction, vs. just avoiding restricting our future options. 07:42:04 John: But if we want to encpsulate the model, we can call it something else 07:42:11 MarkS has joined #forms 07:42:53 s/encp/encap/ 07:43:15 CHarliue: There is an inconsistency between allowing calculate on readonly, but not a setvalue 07:43:23 s/CH/Ch/ 07:43:33 s/liue/lie 07:44:04 Nick: It is about model encapsulation 07:44:15 Charlie: Sounds like splitting hairs 07:44:22 Rafael has joined #forms 07:44:52 Erik: We want to provide the model with behaviour that extends the binds and so on 07:45:56 Charlie: I want to do with script what I can do with constraints 07:46:25 scribe: ebruchez 07:47:08 John: Other example why MIPs are annotations consumed by other models is the definition: "An XForms-specific annotation to an instance data node" 07:47:26 Nick: It's an annotation for the model. 07:47:43 Nick: It's not a contradition, it depends who consumes it. 07:48:27 Charlie: What bugs me is the asymmetry between @calculate and setvalue. 07:48:49 Nick: @calculate coud call script via custom XPath functions. 07:48:55 John: Ouch. 07:50:47 Erik: Somtimes you want to use @calculate, sometimes setvalue. 07:50:57 Charlie: I am still bothered by the asymmetry. 07:51:22 s/Somtimes/Sometimes 07:51:23 Rafa has joined #forms 07:53:07 Mark S., John is suggesting a straw poll. 08:02:04 John: So we have 5 in favor of readonly impacting actions, and 3 in favor of not. 08:02:15 Charlie: I don't think the straw poll is sufficient to decide. 08:02:22 that is too bad 08:02:26 Steven: So what do you suggest we decide? 08:02:41 it sounds like this is just too big for 1.1 08:02:42 s/what do you/how do you 08:03:03 Nick: Would be better just to leave things as they are for 1.1, i.e. vague. 08:03:30 Steven: I feel for Nick because he has forms that would break if we decide not to enforce readonly in actions. 08:03:52 but I believe that the other option is the path if least damage 08:03:59 s/if/of/ 08:04:01 John: But he can use the @version attribute to decide what behavior to implement, so that's ok. 08:04:47 so you consign some people to never go to 1.1 08:04:54 Steven: I don't agree with the comment that @version solves the problem. 08:05:03 Nick: It means we can't move to 1.1. 08:05:35 John: If you are upgrading the form, you can make the changes to have the same functionality. It's not impossible, just "interesting". 08:06:51 Nick: readonly makes the whole subtree readonly, and it is hard to rewrite certain XPath expressions. 08:07:05 John: I think there exists a way, for every form, to make it work. 08:08:37 but if you have a schema with a fixed value, do you expect to be able to override that? 08:09:13 what about the model author who is not a form author? 08:09:25 Nick: I am not sure we can generate the XPath. 08:09:50 Erik: I find it funny that you can write setvalue or insert and sometimes they do somthing, sometimes they NOP. 08:09:59 s/somthing/something 08:10:27 John: I agree w/ Erik, [...]. 08:10:38 Nick: Separation of model vs. UI authoring is nice. 08:10:39 Origo creates models for others to consume 08:10:49 it does not create forms 08:10:52 others do that 08:11:06 he expects redonly to be honoured 08:11:09 John: You can still have a model author, it's just what you expect for readonly. 08:11:14 no, he means that a node is readonly 08:11:58 no, actions are just actions, surely? 08:12:00 John: What you could say is that actions within the model are part of the model. 08:12:21 that is just the syntax, surely 08:12:46 if you can get the events outside the model, then you can put the actions outside the model 08:12:55 I would prefer that myself 08:13:38 I think we have good use cases for both kinds of readonly 08:13:44 and we can't really do either 08:14:22 Erik: If the behavior is in the model, then I don't see why the model author can't use setvalue. 08:14:39 well I do :-) 08:15:36 Nick: We have lots of NOPs. 08:15:53 I've changed my straw-poll vote to the hint-only option. 08:16:42 then for consistancy things like type should jut be a hint too 08:16:54 just/jut 08:17:27 If we don't know how the model works, how can anyone else be expected to understand? 08:17:45 Erik: I don't think we do, here setvalue can work, but it will NOPs. It's very hard to debug. It should maybe stop XForms processing then. 08:18:21 John: New straw poll shows 5 to 4 in favor of enforcing readonly. 08:18:38 Steven: We need to see who can live with either. 08:18:52 sorry 08:18:58 do what? 08:19:09 repeat your opinion do the IRC 08:19:09 I can't live with 2 08:19:18 I will die 08:19:21 ;-) 08:19:39 Is MarkB here? 08:20:52 Erik: If we do enforce, it's going to be a lot of work for 1.1. 08:20:57 I still think we need mechanisms to give readonly in the sense Nick and I want, and in the sense that Erik wants, (but not contradicting model readonly) 08:21:08 there are good reasons for both 08:21:32 Steven: (...) 08:21:59 I can't hear John 08:22:07 and I miss his soothing voice 08:22:12 I said: If we don't decide now, then we have to advise authors to assume case 1) 08:22:25 since that includes 2) (and not vice versa) 08:23:24 John: Option 1 is heavier, but we may have to go with it. 08:24:48 If we adopt 1) then to do setvalue on a readonly you have to have a calculate that says it is the same as another (non-readonly) value, and do your setvalues on that one 08:25:43 Erik: If we do 1), then we have the issue of MIP staleness. 08:25:56 Nick: You could disable deferred updates. 08:26:14 Uli: You can leave things out of action blocks. 08:27:23 John: It isn't a big problem to me to make the notes everywhere to explain how this works. If we choose 1), I would like the latitude to write these notes. 08:27:29 MarkB, you are making funny noises 08:27:58 Erik: Sure but it's a lot of complexity. 08:28:16 what is a lot of complexity? 08:28:23 what are you talking about now? 08:29:38 Proposed resolution: Readonly is an inviolate property of the model that other modules (including actions in the model) cannot ignore. Various spec edits will make that clear. 08:30:13 thanks 08:30:15 Uli:What about instance replacement? 08:31:14 John: Submission is IMO separate so will enforce readonly as well. 08:32:42 RESOLUTION: Readonly is an inviolate property of the model that other modules (including actions in the model) cannot ignore. Various spec edits will make that clear. 08:33:16 ACTION: jboyer to make spec changes saying that readonly is an inviolate property of the model that other modules (including actions in the model) cannot ignore. Various spec edits will make that clear. 08:33:20
08:34:03 ACTION: nick to create samples illustrating how readonly affects insert and delete. 08:34:13 ACTION: nick to create samples illustrating how readonly affects instance replacement. 08:34:18 Created ACTION-409 - Make spec changes saying that readonly is an inviolate property of the model that other modules (including actions in the model) cannot ignore. Various spec edits will make that clear. [on John Boyer - due 2007-09-21]. 08:35:15 Nick: We will need UI readonly in 1.2 or 2.0. 08:35:43 agreed 08:41:48 trackbot-ng has joined #forms 08:41:54 Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/xforms/ 08:46:02 unl has joined #forms 08:48:25 TOPIC: Issue 28 08:48:34 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/Model?id=28;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 08:48:35 trackbot-ng has joined #forms 08:48:47 Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/xforms/ 08:50:16 John: When you are in the model you need to go up one level at least 08:50:35 John: We solved the problem for setvalue with the context() function 08:51:41 John: We can defer this to a feature version 08:51:52 s/feature/future/ 08:52:47 John: We could use the context attribute 08:53:45 Nick: It is prob. in the scope of XForms 1.2 08:55:08 John: Agrees that we need a simpler version, but that it is in scope of XForms 1.2 08:56:06 RESOLUTION: Defer issue 28 to XForms 1.2 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/Model?id=28;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 08:56:25 TOPIC: constrain revalidation? 08:56:51 ebruchez2 has joined #forms 08:57:47 John: Write erata change revalidate only validates simple datatypes, and do structaral validation on submit 08:58:05 Erik: I don't know how we can implement this 08:58:57 John: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#evt-revalidate 08:59:33 John: You can do only datatype revalidation by doing full revalidation and only take the datatype errors into account 08:59:51 John: or only do it node by node 09:00:31 Uli: If you do structaral validation how do you report errors where no controls are bound to 09:01:51 Erik: In schema you have the notion of all= strict,skip, in xslt2 they go furture they added lax 09:02:56 Erik: It is hard to only validate dataypes 09:03:26 trackbot-ng has joined #forms 09:03:36 Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/xforms/ 09:03:38 John: You can look to the schema as type mips 09:07:21 s/In schema you have the notion of all= strict,skip, in xslt2 they go furture they added lax/In schema you have the notion of all= strict,skip, lax in xslt2 they go furture they added other modes/ 09:07:28 trackbot-ng has joined #forms 09:07:34 Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/xforms/ 09:08:14 Erik: talks about schema processors and xslt 2.0 09:09:07 John: We can deal with performance, because you know the change, so you could skip instances based on this 09:09:13 I was saying that XML schema defines xsd:any with lax/strict/any processing, and XSLT 2.0 takes this one step further by providing access to these to the styleshet author. 09:10:23 Erik: If you have REST you have a lot of instances for those requests 09:11:15 trackbot-ng has joined #forms 09:11:16 Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/xforms/ 09:11:37 John: Maybe you don't attach schema to the 'important' instances 09:12:02 S/Maybe you don't attach schema to the 'important' instances/ Maybe you only attach schema to the 'important' instances 09:13:26 Proposed resoution: Shoot action 2006-05-31.5 09:13:37 trackbot-ng has joined #forms 09:13:43 Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/xforms/ 09:14:42 Uli: schema can modify the document while validating, e.g.: add default values 09:15:56 Uli: so you maybe need recalculate and rebuild after a revalidate 09:18:17 Erik: We don't enforce the validity 09:21:13 John: The order of validating MIPS and schema validation is important 09:21:33 Erik: schema validation should be ran before MIPS 09:22:58 John: I think schema validation should not modify the dom 09:23:08 John: can we shoot the action item 09:24:29 Erik: We don't specify clearly how validation should be performed, taking into account all the corner cases, but this should be done in the future 09:30:22 RESOLUTION: We shoot action 2006-05-31.5 09:31:04 RESOLUTION: Group and switch are valid targets for MIP events 09:31:28 ACTION: Johnb Update spec to reflect that group and switch are valid targets for MIP events 09:31:28 Sorry, couldn't find user - Johnb 09:33:31 John: Controls do nothing with read-only MIP on group 09:34:47 John: Controls do something with relevant MIP on group 09:37:35 Roger: Maybe we need two things for 'UI level MIPS' and MIPs 09:38:20 s/Roger/Rafael 09:39:21 John: Still agree on prev. resolution 09:42:20 TOPIC: Things wrong with 7.5 09:42:29 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/XPath?id=142;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 09:42:57 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/XPath?id=41;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 09:42:57 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/XPath?id=41;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 09:46:49 28 rnhttp://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff-20070912.html#expr-binding-expression 09:47:11 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff-20070912.html#expr-binding-expression 09:48:00 Erik: We have two issues first is of Michael, and the 5 other points 09:49:24 Erik: we start with issue 142 09:50:11 Erik: We need a clarification, and I should propose some text for the spec 09:50:49 John: The restriction is that the form will not work well if you use dynamic dependencies 09:52:27 Erik: More advanced implementation can process can do beter and proces some/all dynamic dependencies 09:53:23 John: The dependency list is changing by value changes if the parameters of id are not fixed 09:55:38 erik: gives simple example that is not allowed, predicate contains location-path 09:55:53 Erik: He can process this easily 09:57:10 John: gives counter examples 09:58:41 Erik: Want a definition of dynamic dependency 09:58:59 John: It is in the spec -> A dynamic dependency exists on any predicate unless all terms in the test are "fixed", where fixed means either a constant, or a value that will not change between operations explicitly defined as rebuilding computational dependencies. 09:59:33 John: We can say more 09:59:41 Rafael has joined #forms 10:01:11 John: proposes new definition : An expression is dynamically dependent on a node or function return result if a 10:01:11 change to the node or function return result causes a change to the dependency 10:01:11 list of the expression. 10:01:37 Nick: How can we translate the definition to a form auther readable definition 10:01:45 Erik: Don't think we can 10:01:55 Erik: Why do we need rebuild? 10:02:10 Erik: The processor should be smart enough 10:03:27 Erik: We need to say what will happen if you violate this 10:03:40 John: The form might not work as expected 10:04:17 John: We figured out that delete and insert should do a rebuild 10:06:19 Erik: I think that the dependency algorithm is over specified 10:07:41 John: The master dependency ensures that calculation is done in a linear time. 10:08:02 wellsk has joined #forms 10:08:05 I have to go for a while 10:08:10 be back later 10:08:10 morning all 10:08:44 hi 10:10:14 Nick: You can skip parts in the rebuild if you are smart enough, as long as the result is the same as specified in the spec 10:15:16 John: There is simple difference between visiting and referencin a node 10:17:11 John:

10:19:04 John: if you have calculates on the elements, you vistit the multiple child nodes for name element tests, but only references one element 10:21:17 John: if you don't make a difference between visiting and referencing node you get false circular dependencies 10:27:28 John: We execute all the xpath expressions to know what nodes are referenced and are in the dependency graph 10:28:01 Erik: We were going to do static analysis, and that will not work correctly for John's example 10:38:20 Nick: Explains an algrorithm that solves the referenced node problem using a strandard xpath engine 10:41:49 Erik: John's definition is more clear, and the section should not start with a negative sentance 10:42:07 s/sentance/sentence 10:42:53 RESOLUTION: We accept that a better definition is needed and defintion for wath happens when you use a dynamic dep. in the model 10:43:47 s/wath/what/ 10:44:02 s/defintion/definition/ 10:44:34 ACTION: jboyer Correct section 7.3.1 Dynamic Dependencies with spec text based on the notes of issue 142 10:44:34 Created ACTION-410 - Correct section 7.3.1 Dynamic Dependencies with spec text based on the notes of issue 142 [on John Boyer - due 2007-09-21]. 10:45:07 TOPIC: issue 41 10:51:12 unl has joined #forms 11:02:07 Erik: Why do we say By default, all binding expressions refer to the first instance 11:02:07 within the context model. This behavior can be changed with the 11:02:07 instance() function. 11:02:22 John: The sentence is wrong 11:02:38 John: It is redundant, so get rid of it 11:03:45 RESOLUTION: Remove By default, all binding expressions refer to the first instancewithin the context model. This behavior can be changed with the instance() function." 11:04:48 Erik: Section "7.5.2 Model Binding Expressions" what is a Model Binding Expressions? 11:05:37 Erik: Binding expressions do not always throw binding exception but also compute exceptions? 11:05:54 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007Apr/0059.html 11:07:12 John: Every expression in a bind is a Model Binding Expressions, and by consequence the dynamic depency limition apply to them 11:09:01 John: we introduce the trem compute expressions 11:10:52 s/ we introduce the trem compute expressions/ we have coputed expression/ 11:11:41 s/coputed/computed/ 11:13:08 Proposed Resolution: For issue 41 point 3, a computed expression is not a kind of model binding expression AND clarify that dynamic dep. issues affect both model binding expressions and computed expressions 11:14:34 RESOLUTION: For issue 41 point 3, a computed expression is not a kind of model binding expression AND clarify that dynamic dep. issues affect both model binding expressions and computed expressions 11:15:07 ACTION: jboyer : implement issue 41 point 3, a computed expression is not a kind of model binding expression AND clarify that dynamic dep. issues affect both model binding expressions and computed expressions 11:15:07 Created ACTION-411 - : implement issue 41 point 3, a computed expression is not a kind of model binding expression AND clarify that dynamic dep. issues affect both model binding expressions and computed expressions [on John Boyer - due 2007-09-21]. 11:16:19 ACTION: jboyer :Why does Section "7.5.3 UI Binding Expressions": 11:16:19 Created ACTION-412 - :Why does Section \"7.5.3 UI Binding Expressions\": [on John Boyer - due 2007-09-21]. 11:16:19 contain implement issue 41 point 3, a computed expression is not a kind of model binding expression AND clarify that dynamic dep. issues affect both model binding expressions and computed expressions 11:17:16 ACTION 7= 11:17:27 rrsagent, help 11:17:34 ACTION: jboyer :Why does Section "7.5.3 UI Binding Expressions": 11:17:34 Created ACTION-413 - :Why does Section \"7.5.3 UI Binding Expressions\": [on John Boyer - due 2007-09-21]. 11:17:54 ACTION- 7 11:18:02 ACTION- 8 11:18:51 rrsagent, grep @ 11:18:51 I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for '@' 11:18:53 Section "7.5.3 UI Binding Expressions": 11:18:53 Erik: Why contain Section "7.5.3 UI Binding Expressions": "Dynamic dependences are allowed in UI binding expressions based on 11:18:53 the conformance profile." 11:20:39 John: I will take care of 4.b when processing 1 11:21:13 RESOLUTION: We allow dynamic dependencies in the UI 11:22:30 Erik: Section "4.3.4 The xforms-refresh Event": says that bindings should be reevaluated as necessary, what does this mean? 11:22:55 John: It is not enough if you use the index() in the ui 11:25:42 John: the index() should trigger a pseudo dependency 11:28:11 Erik: The text dynamic dependencies in the UI are supported implies that it will update the UI when the index is changed 11:28:40 s/Erik: /john :/ 11:30:54 RESOLUTION: change "3. All UI bindings should be reevaluated as necessary." to "3. All UI bindings should be reevaluated." 11:31:35 S/3. All UI bindings should be reevaluated./3. All UI bindings should appear as they were reevaluated./ 11:32:05 s/as they/as if they 11:35:54 Erik : In 6. Section "4.6.7 Sequence: Value Change": "xforms-refresh performs reevaluation of UI binding expressions" but maybe it is OK now, that we addressed point 5 11:36:48 adjourn for lunch 11:37:40 RESOLUTION: We will not change the text related to xforms-refresh in 4.6.7 Sequence Value Change 13:08:41 unl has joined #forms 13:11:51 unl has joined #forms 13:14:55 back from lunch 13:18:17 Topic: SMIL3 State 13:22:57 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-SMIL3-20070713/smil-state.html 13:23:33 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-SMIL3-20070713/smil-state.html#adef-expr 13:24:22 Charley: They added function, that can be used in the expression languages 13:24:46 John: Can they acces instance data 13:24:58 Charley: That is defined in the next section 13:25:16 Steven: Expression is a poorly name 13:25:28 Uli: It is more like relevant 13:25:28 s/expression/expr/ 13:25:42 John: It is more like if 13:25:51 Steven: They should use a better name 13:26:17 John: People don't like negative name 13:26:38 Uli: Maybe use active, show, ... 13:27:04 John: They don't say anything about evaluation context 13:27:22 Charley: They say something about it som sections before 13:28:23 Charley: there is informative text 'The context in which the expressions are evaluated is as follows:' 13:28:38 Uli: Note that "out of scope" here refers only to the scope of the State Test module, which only involves scalar expressions, the expression context is more fully defined in the Language Profile because it includes the State Test module as well. 13:29:06 Steven: They say not which language to use, so the language needs to define the context 13:29:29 Nick: They have a language attribute 13:29:38 Charley: It is on state 13:30:48 Charley: The SMIL 3.0 Language Profile specifies that XPath 1.0 is used as __the__ expression language. 13:31:10 John: They need links to supported Language Profiles 13:33:50 Charley: No distinction between model and instance 13:35:45 Nick: can in xforms setvalue set an attribute that doesn't exists? 13:35:55 Charley: Do they support attributes? 13:36:13 Nick: It maybe dependant on the language you use 13:36:26 John: newvalue is our insert? 13:36:30 Charley: Yes 13:36:47 John: where is the delete action?They don't have it 13:37:31 Charley: The name state is confusing if used in combination with State Chart XML 13:37:37 Steven: It is name spaced 13:37:55 John: New value is like insert 13:38:09 like about 10% of insert 13:39:15 Nick: Maybe they have languages that only support flat space (just like variables) 13:40:13 John: So position should be defined in language profile 13:42:14 John: if in xpath points to no element how do you know where to create the element 13:42:52 Charley: The section is not well structured 13:44:57 John: where are they going to insert the name element?First child? 13:46:17 John: Is name an XPath 13:46:30 Charley: Do they only support elements? 13:46:51 15.6.5 Data Model 13:47:08 Charley: Why does it appear here (15.6.5 Data Model) 13:47:36 Charley: They could use a lot of more examples 13:47:59 Nick: There is a lot informative 13:48:13 John: They state only contains instance 13:48:36 Charley: They have no seperate model an instance 13:49:32 Nick: Why is everything in 15.6.6 Data Model Events informative 13:49:46 Charley: Let's asume that it is normative 13:50:01 Charley: they only have two events 13:50:37 Charley: Do you get a statechange on a new value 13:51:20 John: If so is ref the ref+name of newvalue 13:52:11 Charley: Are it DOM events? 13:52:22 and third, if they buy our point about needing a delete, then stateChange will probably have to tell what node lost a child but not which child (because it has been deleted) 13:52:52 s/Charley/Charlie/G 13:53:58 Charlie: When do you get a contentControlChange event, do you always get both events? 13:55:15 Charlie: Should SMIL be included in a host language? 13:55:22 Steven: It has a root element 13:56:22 John: distinct xmlid __namespace__ should be distinct xmlid __space__ 13:57:07 John: I want setvalue, insert, delete and a submission module on top 13:57:45 Charlie: The SMIL StateSubmission Module only says that they use XForms submissions 13:57:56 Charlie: What did they do with our events? 13:58:24 John: Could you capture an xforms-submit-done event and do a setvalue 13:58:41 Steven: Do they allow more then one submission element? 13:58:53 Charley: How do fire a submission 13:59:16 John: We are in front of them, couldn't they use XForms 1.1 submission 14:00:03 John: submisison is outside state (read instance) like our submission is out of our instance but inside the model 14:00:29 Charlie: Is this the way to go, just copy past stuf you want out of our spec? 14:01:03 John: They only support one state, so submission will always replace the state 14:01:19 John: The clasic search terms example is not supported 14:01:33 s/clasic/classic/ 14:01:54 Charlie: They are doing a profile, but maybe they are 'borrowing' not enough 14:02:01 rrsagent, make minuts 14:02:01 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minuts', Steven. Try /msg RRSAgent help 14:02:08 rrsagent, make minutes 14:02:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/14-forms-minutes.html Steven 14:02:41 Present+Leigh 14:02:42 John: Solution they could use only one state, if they add the target attribute of XForms 1.1 14:02:46 Present+MarkB 14:03:25 Charlie: We have been talking of AVT's for years, and they just add it without saying much about it 14:03:48 John: How do they activate the send 14:04:40 Nick: send is activated by they timing construct 14:04:51 John: Is submit synchronous 14:05:19 Charlie: You need async in a multimedia env. 14:05:54 Charlie: submission is new in SMIL 3.0 14:06:09 in xforms 1.1, submission is asynch by default 14:06:14 Charlie: maybe they think it is a zero duration action, like writing to a file 14:06:44 which means that the result won't be available when the send finishes. 14:06:55 Charlie has joined #forms 14:07:05 If they say synchronous, then it blocks, which may not be wha they want for multimedia presentation 14:07:36 if asynch, then they will need to be able to process xforms-submit-done and xforms-submit-error events 14:08:17 Charlie: They point to xslt for AVT 14:08:17 MarkS has joined #forms 14:09:41 Charlie: if you have async events what is the relation between events and the normal timed execution, of actions 14:10:04 i/TOPIC: Issue 28/Scribe: Nick/ 14:10:09 rrsagent, make minutes 14:10:09