See also: IRC log
<John_Boyer> Scribe: Leigh
<John_Boyer> scribenick: klotz
<markbirbeck> previous call overrunning...
Thank you Paul
<John_Boyer> Scribe: Paul
<John_Boyer> scribenick: prb
Steven: chairing next week
John: should be just same as
current agenda, sans anything done
... precede important topics with *
<John_Boyer> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0017.html
John: travel difficult for some,
worth raising subject of virtualisation
... difficult to get more than 8 hours in a day, for all
timezones
... virtual FtF should be split, 2 days in one week, then 2 day
s in next
... whichever FtF this is done for, if any,
Charlie: understands travel
difficulties
... pessimistic about approval
klotz: budget OK for one trip this year
<ebruchez> same here, the Mountain View meeting doesn't imply any travel for me
<Steven> I can make the Feb meeting
<Steven> Nick, please phone in again
nick: (problems on line) already have tickets for Google, Amsterdam is close, less problems
John: easier question is: do we want Amsterdam as virtual, or should we proceed with actual face to face
<Steven> (Me neither ;-) )
<nick> same for me Amsterdam isn't a problem for me
Mark: I abstain, as Amsterdam is easy for me, so people with more issues should say
klotz: If we decide now that we
have virtual ftf, and it works, we may never meet again
... we should postpone the decision until summer, don't see
what giving up buys us
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
Klotz: that's not just location, but planning,
mark: another way to look at it
is: how many can say now that they can go?
... all europeans can go
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
... not much difference between Amsterdam and London, if other
things were happening, then I can get to London, and happy to
do so
John: interesting, as it amounts to Charlie organising an IBM location, and Mark organising other things
Mark: roughly, I'd do the running
around and evaluating places and dinner etc.
... 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
John: we don't know if Charlie will get approval to go yet
Charlie: I can coordinate rooms etc.
Mark: I pictured a Ubiquity afternoon, or similar, around the WG meeting
Charlie: if john and I can get approval for one trip, we need to consider whether London or San Jose
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
... more likely I'll get approval, but I don't know what
happens in June
Mark: didn't mean to divert conversation from next FtF, just following Leigh's statement
John: assuming most people can make a live meeting ...
Klotz: Amsterdam is good, as the PTB are used to seeing it,
Mark: maybe we can do extras in Amsterdam, did you mention about CWI possibilities
Steven: w3c NL is based here, and the new man there may wish to make his mark
John: do we want to leave it in Amsterdam
klotz: I suggest we agree some parameters now,
Charlie: I can't book until three months before,
klotz: revisit in early march, do we need to gather any new information by then?
charlie: what is economic situation?
John: the only people who will have real issues, are charlie and I
Klotz: actually, I have approval, but it could be taken away
John: I can't think of anything else we'd be waiting on
<unl> @john: so lets a ftf in victoria ;-)
Charlie: consensus sounds like go ahead with Google then decide in early march about European one
<scribe> ACTION: John to publish new firefox implementation reports from Keith [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - John
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jkugelma, jboyer)
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
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
wellsk: It was part of triage
John: maybe someone can take a
copy of our so called loan form and make it work
... it brings up issues of test suite maintenance
wellsk: I want to see if anyone was able to take over responsibility of test suite in the WG
John: that's important, as we go on, there may be tweaks to the suite
wellsk: I don't mind taking responsibility until someone else can take over
john: are we looking for someone to take over after 1.1
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
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.
... 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,
klotz: is the issue getting the
replace done, or getting the submit-done event
... if it's simply getting the submit-done, we can make a case
for that
... if it is the whole package of this kind of submission,
that's a different story
... If it's just the event, then we could credibly change the
spec
John: which would ripple into the
test suite.
... there are tests that are not testing replace=all, but use
it to test something else in some way
... 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
... 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
... test suite maintenance after XForms 1.1 will certainly be
an issue
... is there anyone on the call that might be able to take that
responsibility. It will come hand in hand with implementation
report maintenance
... what is the list of tests that only has one implementation
that passes now
wellsk: I'll take that on and see what I can come up with
<scribe> ACTION: wellsk produce a report of tests that are only passed by one implementation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - wellsk
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
... possibly some people on the phone could contribute to
Ubiquity, which would in turn require permissions from your
managers
... an implementation report from ubiquity is a few months out,
and we're having a long delay here
wellsk: could we use the current
status of ubiquity, and compare it to the other 2, would that
be legitimate?
... 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
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
... 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
... are you OK looking at that for now to see where we need
further implementation reports outside ubiquity
wellsk: fails won't be counted at all at this point,
John: it may be hard to track, as
this will be changing over the coming weeks
... you are producing a list of tests with less than two
passes, and ubiquity as is can be used to compile that list
wellsk: I'm ok with that
John: is there a way to get a report from chiba
nick: I don't think I'll be able to get a test report
markbirbeck: it's difficult for
us to make both a formsPlayer report, and one for
ubiquity
... if we can use this list, we can look at features and
produce a partial report that fills some of the gaps
<wiecha> or it could drive the priorities in doing the ubiquity items too
john: good. there have been some
reports with pass/fail/unknown
... we can say that formsPlayer , as a long standing
implmentation could help out, without committing to running all
the tests
wiecha: this will help drive stategy in ubiquity
John: is that feasible for you mark
markbirbeck: is there a list already, or one in production
john: he is producing two lists,
one being the most urgent, with no implementations, there are
about 30 of those, I think
... A starting report, where formsPlayer passes any of those
tests, that would be most important
mark: then we need one 100% conformant implementation?
John: actually, we got rid of that requirement
<w3cllsk> triage, 2 failures list : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0012.html
John: any "MUST" feature must
have two implementations, then any other, just one
... Keith has one where neither Firefox nor EMC pass
already
... then he'll produce one where there is only one out of EMC,
Firefox, or ubiquity that implement them
... for example, mailto and file submissions, which ubiquity
probably won't pass anyway
... if this is a bad idea, speak up, the implementation report
for ubiquity under IE7 is different to FF3. An implementation
is browser+processor
<wiecha> you could add webkit to that list too
John: the world looks at us for
cross-browser compliance, I'd like to test the waters, by
submitting two implementation reports for ubiquity
... it will have a big impact on xforms for html
implementation
wiecha: three ways, for the webkit implementation
john: yes, when we have them for other browsers, submit them
wiecha: we have that now
John: but not an implementation
report
... "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
charlie: just making sure that
any discussion includes the full set
... we spend a fair amount in the team, dealing with this sort
of thing
... testing on different browsers
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
... Rounding off, we need to get 1.1 out of the door, it is a
classic .1, being 50% bigger than .0
... Can we get a limited Orbeon implementation report? Can you
take that to management Erik
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.
... but other than that, it is likely to get pushed further
into the future
John: Great suggestion perhaps we
can point them to Keith's work
... The thing you have just suggested, Erik. Nick, could you
take that back to Joren
Nick: We can focus on the tests that others fail
Keith: Is Firefox 2 a different implementation to FF3
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.
... trying to spin different versions of the same branded
browser, I can see objections
Keith: I just thought the question needed to be asked, I agree with you
John: I couldn't defend it, but I could defend totally different browser support
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
John: that's great news
Steven: they didn't create a report, just have an implementation?
John: they did send us a report
Steven: the other thing was that XHTML2 WG was asking for RelaxNG XForms schemata if anyone has them
klotz: there were the ones that Micah did, and I had a go at modularising them
Steven: I think there is an expert who wants to modularise XHTML RelaxNG
klotz: Nick and I have separate
copies
... shall I send it to you
Steven: Shane is the best person to send it to
John: under Action Items on the Agenda, there was a problem reported on copy and delete that we needed analysis done on
klotz: I'll continue to promis to look at it. I'll try in the next two weeks
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
... I'm looking at the latest list. Starting at Mark's list -
have you looked yet?
Mark: not yet, I meant to do so this morning
Steven: can you paste a link, John?
<John_Boyer> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0023.html
<Steven> for the minutes
Mark, can you lookk now, and paste into IRC any that are no longer relevant or are done
<Steven> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/att-0023/actions-2009-01-12.html
<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.
Mine are up to date, so skipping through to Erik, none look like they are top priority
<wiecha> This is done: Charlie to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms-tf/2008Apr/0025.html
John: Paul I think you've done 1 and 3
<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.
<wiecha> [oops] Paul -- your substitute probably got targeted at my URL,...sorry
<John_Boyer> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0023.html
<wiecha> my other actions related to work underway for current modules
John: Is Uli still on the line?
<markbirbeck> I would say that Action 2006-03-02.5 is no longer relevant.
Uli: I'm just looking on my list, something is quite old, "context everywhere"
John: I think that's one's done
<markbirbeck> I think that Action 2007-05-02.4 was eventually completed by Paul.
Uli: I had a look at the Editor's Draft, but I can't see it
<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
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 2008-08-20.1
<Steven> I have done many of the actions, I'll give myself an action to tell Nick which ones
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
<klotz> I completed Action 2008-07-23.4
<klotz> I completed Action 2008-01-09.4
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
... hopefully, steven, that can be on next weeks agenda,
otherwise, Uli, send a reminder
<klotz> I completed Action 2007-05-16.3
Uli: I think we had discussion about xforms-serialize event,
John: perhaps you can post to the email list, and get some discussion going there
<klotz> Kenneth and John completed Action 2007-03-07.1
<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.
Steven: I've given myself an action item to tick off those that I have actually done
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
<John_Boyer> Two from Kenneth have been done.
John: there are two from Kenneth that have been done,
<markbirbeck> I also don't think that Action 2007-09-26.1 is relevant anymore.
John: Nick, as maintainer, I presume that your list is up to date
Leigh: I have gotten one again today, is to seek expert help on the RelaxNG schema
John: one last easy topic -
specifications with multiple modules,
... 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
... 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
... 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?
Wiecha: That makes pragmatic sense
Leigh: How is it different to what we are doing
<Steven> +1
John: We can discuss on the list if this is the wrong direction, Nick and I can exchange emails on collaboration,
Nick: I'm leaving on vacation next week, so there will be delay
John: I have to be at LotusSphere next week, but after that, perhaps we'll have greater velocity
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/JOhn/John/ Succeeded: s/we/w3c/ Succeeded: s/Mica/Micah/ Succeeded: i/Steven: I have a "done" action item,/Topic: EMC joining Forms WG Succeeded: i/Steven: the other thing was/Topic: Relax schemas for XForms Succeeded: i/John: It would be a good idea /Topic: Actions Succeeded: s/2/3/ Succeeded: s/3008Jul/2008Jul/ Succeeded: s/1 and 2/1 and 3/ Succeeded: s/TH/Th/ Found Scribe: Leigh Found ScribeNick: klotz Found Scribe: Paul Found ScribeNick: prb Scribes: Leigh, Paul ScribeNicks: klotz, prb Default Present: John_Boyer, wellsk, wiecha, Nick_van_den_Bleeken, ebruchez, prb, unl, Steven, Leigh_Klotz, markbirbeck Present: John_Boyer wellsk wiecha Nick_van_den_Bleeken ebruchez prb unl Steven Leigh_Klotz markbirbeck Regrets: None Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0021.html Got date from IRC log name: 14 Jan 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-forms-minutes.html People with action items: john wellsk WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]