IRC log of forms on 2009-01-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:41:21 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #forms
15:41:21 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-irc
15:41:28 [John_Boyer]
rrsagent, make log public
15:42:11 [John_Boyer]
John_Boyer has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0021.html
15:42:12 [wellsk]
wellsk has joined #forms
15:42:43 [John_Boyer]
Meeting: Weekly Forms WG Teleconference
15:42:47 [John_Boyer]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0021.html
15:42:51 [John_Boyer]
Chair: John
15:42:55 [John_Boyer]
Scribe: Leigh
15:43:00 [John_Boyer]
scribenick: klotz
15:43:10 [John_Boyer]
Regrets: None
15:44:04 [Zakim]
HTML_Forms()10:45AM has now started
15:44:11 [Zakim]
+John_Boyer
15:44:38 [Zakim]
+wellsk
15:44:41 [Zakim]
-John_Boyer
15:44:42 [Zakim]
+John_Boyer
15:45:04 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
15:45:12 [wiecha]
zakim, [ibm] is wiecha
15:45:12 [Zakim]
+wiecha; got it
15:46:25 [nick1]
nick1 has joined #forms
15:46:35 [nick1]
zakim, code?
15:46:35 [Zakim]
the conference code is 36767 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), nick1
15:46:38 [Zakim]
+??P3
15:47:13 [Zakim]
+Nick_van_den_Bleeken
15:47:15 [ebruchez]
zakim, ??P3 is ebruchez
15:47:15 [Zakim]
+ebruchez; got it
15:47:32 [Zakim]
+??P5
15:47:49 [prb]
zakim, I am ??P5
15:47:49 [Zakim]
+prb; got it
15:49:19 [unl]
unl has joined #forms
15:49:19 [John_Boyer]
zakim, who is here?
15:49:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see John_Boyer, wellsk, wiecha, ebruchez, Nick_van_den_Bleeken, prb
15:49:21 [Zakim]
On IRC I see unl, nick1, wellsk, RRSAgent, Zakim, John_Boyer, prb, wiecha, ebruchez, klotz, markbirbeck, Steven, trackbot
15:50:17 [Zakim]
+ +49.307.544.aaaa
15:50:39 [unl]
zakim, +49.307.544.aaaa is me
15:50:39 [Zakim]
+unl; got it
15:51:02 [markbirbeck]
previous call overrunning...
15:51:34 [unl]
zakim, mute me
15:51:34 [Zakim]
unl should now be muted
15:53:33 [Steven]
agenda+ relax NG description of XForms
15:54:05 [Steven]
zakim, dial steven-617
15:54:05 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:54:07 [Zakim]
+Steven
15:57:14 [Zakim]
+Leigh_Klotz
15:58:10 [klotz]
Thank you Paul
15:58:11 [John_Boyer]
Scribe: Paul
15:58:18 [John_Boyer]
scribenick: prb
15:58:51 [prb]
TOPIC: Upcoming Telecons
15:59:00 [prb]
Steven: chairing next week
15:59:25 [prb]
John: should be just same as current agenda, sans anything done
15:59:41 [prb]
John: precede important topics with *
16:00:17 [markbirbeck]
zakim, code?
16:00:22 [Zakim]
the conference code is 36767 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck
16:00:25 [John_Boyer]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0017.html
16:00:50 [prb]
TOPIC: next FtF
16:00:50 [Zakim]
+markbirbeck
16:01:22 [prb]
John: travel difficult for some, worth raising subject of virtualisation
16:01:44 [prb]
John: difficult to get more than 8 hours in a day, for all timezones
16:02:05 [prb]
John: virtual FtF should be split, 2 days in one week, then 2 day s in next
16:02:30 [prb]
John: whichever FtF this is done for, if any,
16:02:45 [prb]
Charlie: understands travel difficulties
16:02:55 [prb]
Charlie: pessimistic about approval
16:03:22 [prb]
klotz: budget OK for one trip this year
16:03:44 [ebruchez]
same here, the Mountain View meeting doesn't imply any travel for me
16:04:12 [Steven]
I can make the Feb meeting
16:04:33 [klotz]
zakim, who is noisy?
16:04:34 [Steven]
Nick, please phone in again
16:04:42 [Zakim]
-Nick_van_den_Bleeken
16:04:45 [Zakim]
klotz, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Boyer (29%), wellsk (6%), Nick_van_den_Bleeken (29%)
16:04:47 [prb]
nick: (problems on line) already have tickets for Google, Amsterdam is close, less problems
16:04:49 [nick]
zakim, code?
16:04:49 [Zakim]
the conference code is 36767 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), nick
16:05:31 [Zakim]
+Nick_van_den_Bleeken
16:05:58 [prb]
John: easier question is: do we want Amsterdam as virtual, or should we proceed with actual face to face
16:06:30 [Steven]
(Me neither ;-) )
16:06:33 [nick]
same for me Amsterdam isn't a problem for me
16:06:39 [prb]
Mark: I abstain, as Amsterdam is easy for me, so people with more issues should say
16:07:08 [prb]
klotz: If we decide now that we have virtual ftf, and it works, we may never meet again
16:07:42 [prb]
klotz: we should postpone the decision until summer, don't see what giving up buys us
16:08:19 [Steven]
q+
16:08:27 [prb]
Mark: when we talked about doing it London, I was planning other things, such as XForms Day School, around it, as we have all world's XForms experts in one place at a time, we can do that sort of thing
16:08:39 [prb]
Klotz: that's not just location, but planning,
16:09:01 [prb]
mark: another way to look at it is: how many can say now that they can go?
16:09:10 [John_Boyer]
ack Steven
16:09:27 [prb]
Mark: all europeans can go
16:10:02 [prb]
Steven: moved to amsterdam as I couldn't get funding to go to london, but if Mark organises other things, I can get funding from other sources to give presentations
16:10:30 [prb]
Steven: not much difference between Amsterdam and London, if other things were happening, then I can get to London, and happy to do so
16:10:53 [prb]
John: interesting, as it amounts to Charlie organising an IBM location, and Mark organising other things
16:11:21 [prb]
Mark: roughly, I'd do the running around and evaluating places and dinner etc.
16:11:52 [prb]
Mark: IBM have big centre near the river near my office, so I can check it out in the weeks beforehand , and I'm open to doing so
16:12:03 [prb]
John: we don't know if Charlie will get approval to go yet
16:12:14 [prb]
Charlie: I can coordinate rooms etc.
16:12:37 [prb]
Mark: I pictured a Ubiquity afternoon, or similar, around the WG meeting
16:13:04 [prb]
Charlie: if john and I can get approval for one trip, we need to consider whether London or San Jose
16:13:37 [prb]
John: I don't have approval yet, but I didn't get it last time, and I was cancelled before, and I have outstanding airline credit enough for San Jose, but not Europe
16:13:56 [prb]
JOhn: more likely I'll get approval, but I don't know what happens in June
16:14:25 [Steven]
s/JOhn/John/
16:14:25 [prb]
Mark: didn't mean to divert conversation from next FtF, just following Leigh's statement
16:14:44 [prb]
John: assuming most people can make a live meeting ...
16:15:20 [prb]
Klotz: Amsterdam is good, as the PTB are used to seeing it,
16:15:48 [prb]
Mark: maybe we can do extras in Amsterdam, did you mention about CWI possibilities
16:16:08 [prb]
Steven: w3c NL is based here, and the new man there may wish to make his mark
16:16:21 [prb]
John: do we want to leave it in Amsterdam
16:16:34 [prb]
klotz: I suggest we agree some parameters now,
16:16:49 [prb]
Charlie: I can't book until three months before,
16:17:12 [prb]
klotz: revisit in early march, do we need to gather any new information by then?
16:17:26 [prb]
charlie: what is economic situation?
16:17:44 [prb]
John: the only people who will have real issues, are charlie and I
16:18:02 [prb]
Klotz: actually, I have approval, but it could be taken away
16:18:20 [prb]
John: I can't think of anything else we'd be waiting on
16:18:21 [unl]
@john: so lets a ftf in victoria ;-)
16:19:07 [prb]
Charlie: consensus sounds like go ahead with Google then decide in early march about European one
16:19:27 [prb]
TOPIC: XForms 1.1 situation
16:20:04 [prb]
ACTION: John to publish new firefox implementation reports from Keith
16:20:04 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - John
16:20:04 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jkugelma, jboyer)
16:20:53 [prb]
Keith: Firefox 3 they have done a bit of work in, and official release is behind development cycle, it was hard to get development version
16:21:39 [prb]
I got official release, and tested the various failures, and corrected some of the issues in Chapter 10, and submitted back to group, >80% now pass
16:21:45 [Steven]
zakim, who is noisy?
16:21:56 [Zakim]
Steven, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
16:22:02 [prb]
wellsk: It was part of triage
16:22:32 [prb]
John: maybe someone can take a copy of our so called loan form and make it work
16:22:46 [prb]
John: it brings up issues of test suite maintenance
16:23:20 [prb]
wellsk: I want to see if anyone was able to take over responsibility of test suite in the WG
16:23:44 [prb]
John: that's important, as we go on, there may be tweaks to the suite
16:24:07 [prb]
wellsk: I don't mind taking responsibility until someone else can take over
16:24:23 [prb]
john: are we looking for someone to take over after 1.1
16:24:43 [Steven]
agenda+report on EMC response on joining
16:25:00 [prb]
wellsk: sooner if possible, but if I have to take 1.1 to PR, I don't mind. The level of commitment is not too great
16:25:56 [prb]
John: there may be some cases that rely on some features that are difficult to implement in some processors, and this is the first time we are exercising such a large test suite.
16:26:37 [prb]
John: for example. There are some issues that rely on replace="all", and in ubiquity, the best we can do is to defer to the browser,
16:26:59 [prb]
klotz: is the issue getting the replace done, or getting the submit-done event
16:27:17 [prb]
klotz: if it's simply getting the submit-done, we can make a case for that
16:27:45 [prb]
klotz: if it is the whole package of this kind of submission, that's a different story
16:28:11 [prb]
klotz: If it's just the event, then we could credibly change the spec
16:28:26 [prb]
John: which would ripple into the test suite.
16:29:07 [prb]
John: there are tests that are not testing replace=all, but use it to test something else in some way
16:29:48 [prb]
John: If we make a change to the test, we need to ensure that it is in a way that makes it more likely that a test that has already passed will still pass
16:30:26 [prb]
John: as the report from Uli showed us, we had 2 implementation reports roll in that had failures that showed the tests to be the problem
16:30:55 [prb]
John: test suite maintenance after XForms 1.1 will certainly be an issue
16:31:29 [prb]
John: is there anyone on the call that might be able to take that responsibility. It will come hand in hand with implementation report maintenance
16:31:51 [markbirbeck]
zakim, mute me
16:31:51 [Zakim]
markbirbeck should now be muted
16:32:02 [prb]
John: what is the list of tests that only has one implementation that passes now
16:32:33 [prb]
wellsk: I'll take that on and see what I can come up with
16:33:05 [prb]
ACTION: wellsk produce a report of tests that are only passed by one implementation
16:33:05 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - wellsk
16:34:08 [prb]
John: we need at least one more report, because we have a number of test that are only passed by one implementation in the two reports we have so far
16:34:43 [prb]
John: possibly some people on the phone could contribute to Ubiquity, which would in turn require permissions from your managers
16:35:06 [prb]
John: an implementation report from ubiquity is a few months out, and we're having a long delay here
16:35:30 [prb]
wellsk: could we use the current status of ubiquity, and compare it to the other 2, would that be legitimate?
16:36:03 [prb]
wellsk: I say this because of work I did with Markmc, that has it on a wiki page, we could use it as a start point
16:36:51 [prb]
John: whichever ones pass now, could be counted against the feature list where we don't have two passing implmentations, but our conformance level is below 50% right now
16:37:32 [prb]
John: in terms of keeping score, that would be safe, but we need to discuss it, as it is a signal that people should look at it, we can probably discuss it on ubiquity call tomorrow
16:37:56 [prb]
John: are you OK looking at that for now to see where we need further implementation reports outside ubiquity
16:38:33 [prb]
wellsk: fails won't be counted at all at this point,
16:38:47 [prb]
John: it may be hard to track, as this will be changing over the coming weeks
16:39:22 [prb]
John: you are producing a list of tests with less than two passes, and ubiquity as is can be used to compile that list
16:39:27 [prb]
wellsk: I'm ok with that
16:39:33 [markbirbeck]
zakim, unmute me
16:39:33 [Zakim]
markbirbeck should no longer be muted
16:39:38 [prb]
John: is there a way to get a report from chiba
16:40:00 [prb]
nick: I don't think I'll be able to get a test report
16:40:31 [prb]
markbirbeck: it's difficult for us to make both a formsPlayer report, and one for ubiquity
16:41:06 [prb]
markbirbeck: if we can use this list, we can look at features and produce a partial report that fills some of the gaps
16:41:14 [wiecha]
or it could drive the priorities in doing the ubiquity items too
16:41:27 [prb]
john: good. there have been some reports with pass/fail/unknown
16:42:04 [prb]
John: we can say that formsPlayer , as a long standing implmentation could help out, without committing to running all the tests
16:42:21 [prb]
wiecha: this will help drive stategy in ubiquity
16:42:34 [prb]
John: is that feasible for you mark
16:42:48 [prb]
markbirbeck: is there a list already, or one in production
16:43:17 [prb]
john: he is producing two lists, one being the most urgent, with no implementations, there are about 30 of those, I think
16:43:44 [prb]
John: A starting report, where formsPlayer passes any of those tests, that would be most important
16:43:58 [prb]
mark: then we need one 100% conformant implementation?
16:44:19 [prb]
John: actually, we got rid of that requirement
16:44:33 [wellsk]
triage, 2 failures list : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0012.html
16:44:33 [wiecha]
s/we/w3c
16:44:43 [prb]
John: any "MUST" feature must have two implementations, then any other, just one
16:45:07 [prb]
John: Keith has one where neither Firefox nor EMC pass already
16:45:39 [prb]
John: then he'll produce one where there is only one out of EMC, Firefox, or ubiquity that implement them
16:46:04 [prb]
John: for example, mailto and file submissions, which ubiquity probably won't pass anyway
16:46:46 [prb]
John: if this is a bad idea, speak up, the implementation report for ubiquity under IE7 is different to FF3. An implementation is browser+processor
16:47:18 [wiecha]
you could add webkit to that list too
16:47:28 [prb]
John: the world looks at us for cross-browser compliance, I'd like to test the waters, by submitting two implementation reports for ubiquity
16:47:47 [prb]
John: it will have a big impact on xforms for html implementation
16:48:02 [prb]
wiecha: three ways, for the webkit implementation
16:48:14 [prb]
john: yes, when we have them for other browsers, submit them
16:48:20 [prb]
wiecha: we have that now
16:48:29 [prb]
John: but not an implementation report
16:49:08 [prb]
John: "more than one" is what I'm getting at, and if anyone objects, I'll provide these arguments, as it does reflect the spirit of the w3c
16:49:12 [Steven]
agenda?
16:49:22 [prb]
charlie: just making sure that any discussion includes the full set
16:49:49 [prb]
charlie: we spend a fair amount in the team, dealing with this sort of thing
16:50:00 [prb]
charlie: testing on different browsers
16:50:42 [prb]
John: I can say right now, we do have a limited report, but we do have deviations between the two browsers we have reports for, and things like repeat don't work on Safari
16:51:16 [prb]
John: Rounding off, we need to get 1.1 out of the door, it is a classic .1, being 50% bigger than .0
16:51:47 [prb]
John: Can we get a limited Orbeon implementation report? Can you take that to management Erik
16:52:40 [prb]
Erik: not much has changed, we are very busy, and it's difficult to get this into a plan, we can try to see if any of our user community might be able to help with all or part of the report, but we haven't yet put that call out.
16:52:58 [prb]
Erik: but other than that, it is likely to get pushed further into the future
16:53:20 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:53:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-minutes.html Steven
16:53:23 [prb]
John: Great suggestion perhaps we can point them to Keith's work
16:53:59 [prb]
John: The thing you have just suggested, Erik. Nick, could you take that back to Joren
16:54:23 [prb]
Nick: We can focus on the tests that others fail
16:54:40 [prb]
Keith: Is Firefox 2 a different implementation to FF3
16:55:35 [prb]
John: I haven't thought so up to now. It's one thing to say we have an implmentation running on two completely separate browsers, but different versions of the same browser, (arbitrarily, I know) is different.
16:55:58 [prb]
John: trying to spin different versions of the same branded browser, I can see objections
16:56:20 [prb]
Keith: I just thought the question needed to be asked, I agree with you
16:56:40 [prb]
John: I couldn't defend it, but I could defend totally different browser support
16:57:35 [prb]
Steven: I have a "done" action item, to contact EMC, to invite them to the group, the sender says it's difficult, because of lawyers to get approval, but give me time, I think it would be good to do it
16:57:41 [prb]
John: that's great news
16:57:59 [prb]
Steven: they didn't create a report, just have an implementation?
16:58:06 [prb]
John: they did send us a report
16:58:37 [prb]
Steven: the other thing was that XHTML2 WG was asking for RelaxNG XForms schemata if anyone has them
16:59:02 [prb]
klotz: there were the ones that Mica did, and I had a go at modularising them
16:59:27 [prb]
Steven: I think there is an expert who wants to modularise XHTML RelaxNG
16:59:45 [prb]
klotz: Nick and I have separate copies
16:59:53 [John_Boyer]
s/Mica/Micah/
16:59:56 [prb]
klotz: shall I send it to you
17:00:09 [prb]
Steven: Shane is the best person to send it to
17:00:49 [prb]
John: under Action Items on the Agenda, there was a problem reported on copy and delete that we needed analysis done on
17:00:56 [Steven]
i/Steven: I have a "done" action item,/Topic: EMC joining Forms WG
17:01:10 [prb]
klotz: I'll continue to promis to look at it. I'll try in the next two weeks
17:01:24 [Steven]
i/Steven: the other thing was/Topic: Relax schemas for XForms
17:01:30 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:01:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-minutes.html Steven
17:01:54 [prb]
John: It would be a good idea to make a quick pass at the action item list. There have been a number done by a number of people, but haven't been reported
17:02:13 [Steven]
i/John: It would be a good idea /Topic: Actions
17:02:33 [prb]
John: I'm looking at the latest list. Starting at Mark's list - have you looked yet?
17:02:46 [prb]
Mark: not yet, I meant to do so this morning
17:03:00 [prb]
Steven: can you paste a link, John?
17:03:09 [John_Boyer]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0023.html
17:03:10 [Steven]
for the minutes
17:03:51 [prb]
Mark, can you lookk now, and paste into IRC any that are no longer relevant or are done
17:03:53 [Steven]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/att-0023/actions-2009-01-12.html
17:04:28 [wiecha]
This is done: Charlie Wiecha to review http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xml-events-20070216/ and present straw set of comments for discussion and approval at F2F.
17:04:31 [prb]
Mine are up to date, so skipping through to Erik, none look like they are top priority
17:04:41 [wiecha]
This is done: Charlie to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms-tf/2008Apr/0025.html
17:05:15 [prb]
John: Paul I think you've done 1 and 2
17:05:21 [wiecha]
This is done but we might recombine depending on modularization discussion: Charlie Wiecha to refactor http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Jul/att-0001/index-all.html a data island and the setvalue/insert/delete.
17:05:23 [prb]
s/2/3
17:05:47 [klotz]
klotz has joined #forms
17:05:51 [wiecha]
[oops] Paul -- your substitute probably got targeted at my URL,...sorry
17:05:57 [John_Boyer]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0023.html
17:06:23 [unl]
zakim ,unmute me
17:06:26 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:06:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-minutes.html Steven
17:06:27 [wiecha]
my other actions related to work underway for current modules
17:06:34 [prb]
John: Is Uli still on the line?
17:06:35 [unl]
zakim, unmute me
17:06:35 [Zakim]
unl should no longer be muted
17:06:44 [markbirbeck]
I would say that Action 2006-03-02.5 is no longer relevant.
17:07:01 [prb]
Uli: I'm just looking on my list, something is quite old, "context everywhere"
17:07:11 [prb]
John: I think that's one's done
17:07:23 [markbirbeck]
I think that Action 2007-05-02.4 was eventually completed by Paul.
17:07:26 [prb]
Uli: I had a look at the Editor's Draft, but I can't see it
17:07:50 [klotz]
Action 2008-08-20.1 is done; I integrated it into the editor's draft and sent the results to John Boyer; I don't know if it was merged in
17:07:50 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 2008-08-20.1
17:07:55 [Steven]
I have done many of the actions, I'll give myself an action to tell Nick which ones
17:08:02 [prb]
John: I think we decided against it in 1.1, it's 1.2 and ended up going into the binding attributes module, so it's no longer an action item
17:08:23 [klotz]
I completed Action 2008-07-23.4
17:08:47 [klotz]
I completed Action 2008-01-09.4
17:08:53 [prb]
John: something about preparing a discussion about submission module. That has slipped by on the agenda, is that something that can be done for next week
17:09:18 [prb]
John: hopefully, steven, that can be on next weeks agenda, otherwise, Uli, send a reminder
17:09:26 [klotz]
I completed Action 2007-05-16.3
17:09:32 [prb]
Uli: I think we had discussion about xforms-serialize event,
17:09:39 [Steven]
s/3008Jul/2008Jul
17:09:49 [prb]
John: perhaps you can post to the email list, and get some discussion going there
17:09:51 [klotz]
Kenneth and John completed Action 2007-03-07.1
17:09:52 [Steven]
s/1 and 2/1 and 3/
17:10:15 [markbirbeck]
I've not been doing anything special with the XML Schemas for XForms, so I think that Action 2008-04-09.1, Action 2008-02-28.2 and Action 2007-06-13.1 are no longer relevant.
17:10:17 [unl]
zakim, mute me
17:10:17 [Zakim]
unl should now be muted
17:10:21 [prb]
Steven: I've given myself an action item to tick off those that I have actually done
17:10:55 [prb]
John: I did some triage on this yesterday, there are some shorter action item lists for some of the people not coming regularly, but they are not high priority
17:10:58 [John_Boyer]
Two from Kenneth have been done.
17:11:10 [prb]
John: there are two from Kenneth that have been done,
17:11:15 [markbirbeck]
I also don't think that Action 2007-09-26.1 is relevant anymore.
17:11:25 [prb]
John: Nick, as maintainer, I presume that your list is up to date
17:12:03 [prb]
Leigh: I have gotten one again today, is to seek expert help on the RelaxNG schema
17:12:17 [prb]
John: one last easy topic - specifications with multiple modules,
17:13:16 [prb]
John: last week, there was some discussion around Nick's bind module, and it seemed that it might be easier to modularise if we don't go the whole hog on cutting it down into one spec per module straight away
17:14:08 [prb]
John: perhaps some of us could pool our editorial resources and combine MIPS, binding attributes - it would be easier for Nick to talk about custom MIPS if he didn't have to reference different specs
17:14:56 [prb]
John: on Charlie's side, there's a lower level module, and a higher data processing module with delete etc in it, and it would be easier to refer to them within the same spec - how do people feel?
17:15:05 [prb]
Wiecha: THat makes pragmatic sense
17:15:17 [prb]
Leigh: How is it different to what we are doing
17:16:05 [Steven]
s/TH/Th/
17:16:42 [Steven]
+1
17:16:45 [prb]
John: We can discuss on the list if this is the wrong direction, Nick and I can exchange emails on collaboration,
17:17:05 [prb]
Nick: I'm leaving on vacation next week, so there will be delay
17:17:35 [prb]
John: I have to be at LotusSphere next week, but after that, perhaps we'll have greater velocity
17:17:41 [Zakim]
-Steven
17:17:43 [Zakim]
-Leigh_Klotz
17:17:45 [Zakim]
-markbirbeck
17:17:45 [Zakim]
-wiecha
17:17:46 [Zakim]
-wellsk
17:17:46 [Zakim]
-unl
17:17:49 [Zakim]
-Nick_van_den_Bleeken
17:17:51 [Zakim]
-ebruchez
17:17:51 [Zakim]
-John_Boyer
17:17:58 [John_Boyer]
zakim, who is here?
17:17:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see prb
17:18:02 [Zakim]
On IRC I see klotz, unl, nick, wellsk, RRSAgent, Zakim, John_Boyer, prb, ebruchez, markbirbeck, Steven, trackbot
17:18:05 [Zakim]
-prb
17:18:07 [Steven]
zakim, list attendees
17:18:08 [Zakim]
HTML_Forms()10:45AM has ended
17:18:10 [Zakim]
Attendees were John_Boyer, wellsk, wiecha, Nick_van_den_Bleeken, ebruchez, prb, unl, Steven, Leigh_Klotz, markbirbeck
17:18:15 [John_Boyer]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:18:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-minutes.html John_Boyer
17:18:18 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:18:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-minutes.html Steven
17:18:23 [Zakim]
sorry, Steven, I don't know what conference this is
17:19:10 [John_Boyer]
rrsagent, bye
17:19:10 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-actions.rdf :
17:19:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: John to publish new firefox implementation reports from Keith [1]
17:19:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-irc#T16-20-04
17:19:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wellsk produce a report of tests that are only passed by one implementation [2]
17:19:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-irc#T16-33-05