<inserted> Scribenick: klotz

<scribe> Scribe: Leigh

Testing 1.1

John: Erik has asked about tests that we may have nobody pass.
... Part of that is conformance triage.
... XForms 1.2
... For the latter half of the day, start on XForms for HTML assertions

Erik: I won't be here this afternoon.

<wellsk> Nick, can you find out Joern meant with tests 5.5.2.a and 5.5.3.a passing? those are not real test cases

John: We got an idea of what we're not doing (on Monday) but we need an idea of what we are doing.
... Test suite? New report? 1.2 Mod?

Charlie: Let's look quickly at what's important from yesterday.

John: So, XForms 1.1 testing.
... Chapter 4 had some surprising no-passes.

Charlie: If there are ones people can sign up to implement...

<John_Boyer> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Feb/0031.html

Keith: I made the test case changes to the Ubiquity tests but haven't tested them yet.

John: So we might get a few more passes.
... 3.3.4.b more bind element examples

Erik: What should the first one do? There's no nodeset on the bind.

Nick: It is then the default context node, the root.

John: You should get an exception then as it has child elements.

Erik: Binding exception; that's new in 1.1

Keith: This was sparked by controversy on the list

John: The controversy was the second one, a bind with no nodeset, for inner binds.

<ebruchez> 8.1.1 "Element nodes: If element child nodes are present, then an xforms-binding-exception occurs. "

Leigh: So you should get an error on this whole page because of the first test, which has the wrong label?

Erik: So what does bind with no nodeset mean?

Nick: It's the initial context.

Erik: So bind_002 should be "avg" not "/car"

<Steven> i/scribe: Leigh/scribenick: klotz

Nick: There's no way to see both values at the same time.

Leigh: Should we look at the spec to see what this was trying to test?

John: It's testing the in-scope evaluation context node as default for nodeset.
... [fixes example]

Erik: The /prices/price operates relative to the av element so we need

John: ..

Erik: We've lost the first bind

Leigh: That could be a different test.

John: The inner bind has no nodeset.

Leigh: OK.

John: 4.5.2.a xforms-compute-exception

Erik: The event handler is on the model; let me check the spec.

John: 4.5.2.a is a copy-paste error.

Erik: compute is dispatched to the model; there was a different test that was wrong.

John: Why is this a link exception?

Erik: The compute exception is always dispatched to the model; the bind exception is dispatched to the element.

John: It has to be changed to compute exception.

Erik: I think that's not true; it bubbles and stops processing after setting the instance.

Leigh: I think our exception handling is way over engineered for what value it provides.

John: It's under engineered; it just says "processing stops"

Erik: You can't recover from this one so it makes no sense.

John: We should say that the processor is required to dispatch the event but we can't say you can then use XForms markup.

Erik: It should disable xforms after that; the events bubble but no xforms; you could use script for example. We can't require the xforms engine to do anything.

Uli: We say processing stops, but I don't know what that means. What happens to outer events? Is it cut off?

Erik: It's implementation dependent.

John: It does capture, bubble, and then done. Anything after that nobody can have expectation.

Erik: You can set a global flag.

Uli: So how useful is such an exception if you can't handle it? It's the opposite of Java (error/exception)

John: We've changed version; we'll have to change this and some binding tests to "may also see the expression."

Erik: It's more correct.
... Will Ubiquity show it? Too early to say.

John: Too early ot say.

Erik: It depends on the processor.

John: Firefox should now pass this test.

Leigh: What generates it?

John: xf:output value="es@#invalidXpath"

Leigh: I think we've way overspecified what happens with authoring errors.

Erik: We should say that no XForms processing can be done after.

John: The spec says processing halt; the test assumes it doesn't.

Erik: I had never understood.

Uli: So it's useless to attach a message.

John: It says that the default action is to halt processing.

Erik: ...

John: We halt processing after.

Erik: I don't agree. We had this test where we through the exception during model initialization and the XForms processor could ignore any xforms actions that should be run.

<wellsk> FYI: test 4.5.a.xhmtl passes on FF3 when the link is changed to xforms-compute-exception

Erik: It's an edge case, not very useful. There's no way to say what ought to happen with half-initialized models and controls.

Uli: What's the user's expectation? The author? you want to be notified.

Leigh: I think it's a debugger issue, not an xforms issue.

Erik: Look at a javascript error, for example.

Uli: ...

John: This is a design tool mechanism; an xforms processor is required to dispatch the exception but other than dispatching the event and letting it bubble, our processing (actions, ui) is not to be expected. The XForms runtime is reporting an error.

Erik: That's for exceptions; errors are recoverable. So we shouldn't spend too much time on it. The spec should have a note saying that the minimum support is necessary.
... Stop processing once default action is reached.

Charlie: Do you have to go to the default action? Can you dispatch and quit?

Erik: The default action is what stops processing. You could simulate it.

Charlie: It could terminate before bubble captures.

John: I've gone through once before and made sure all exceptions halt processing.

Uli: This says the default action happens after capture/bubble. I've learned it's not necessarily so, in discussions with Mark Birbeck.

Steven: XML Events doesn't define it; it's DOM events.
... The DOM 2 spec is vague; as I understand it, it has to happen after capture and bubble.

John: None are cancellable.

Leigh: can we just add a note saying what we "default action halts processing" means with respect to DOM events?

John: I think what we need to say is that the hooked actions won't necessarily run either with exceptions that happen early in model construction.
... We can make a note in each exception saying implementations need not execute action handlers for each event (nor ui refresh)
... This test 4.5.2.a is challenging

Erik: We can take out the second part. Just test to see that the exception is thrown.

Charlie: A script handler

John: Which is implementation dependent.

Leigh: Why not take out a "You may seen an output" and take out the Forms markup that runs after the exception. Leave in only the stuff that all implementations should show and just print out "processing should halt" and test the negative: put in markup that ought not happen to show processing has halted.

John: We did that once. Was it link exception?

Nick: 4.5.4.a

John: So all the exception should do like 4.5.4.a and say "You shouldn't see this" and say processor-dependent mechanism is necessary to test.

Leigh: Sounds good. If the xf:message in there isn't causing problems but won't show up necessarily, I'd say remove it, but I can live with it if it's not causing problems.

Erik: It's confusing because it's not required.

John: The xf:output inside xf:message may or may not work in the link exception.

Charlie: It's in the bubble-capture so it should work.

John: Since the link exception is in the instance you might not have an evaluation context, though it could be the default instance; we just don't say the order.
... So should I amend all the tests now?

<scribe> ACTION: John Boyer, for each exception event, note that implementations are not required to run XForms action handlers, and user interface update should not occur. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/11-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)

<scribe> ACTION: jboyer, for each exception event, note that implementations are not required to run XForms action handlers, and user interface update must not occur. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/11-forms-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jboyer,

John: In 4.5.4.a we switched to using xhtml:p instead of xf:group because these exceptions halt processing.

<scribe> ACTION: John Boyer to update exception test cases to make no use of xforms processor after exception and indicate fatal error in prose. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/11-forms-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - John

<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jkugelma, jboyer)

Erik: ... xsi:type ...

Nick: There is a test using id type as xsi:type
... There are 3 tests: name id, bind, and xsi:type

John: I have a preference for things in our namespace.
... Do we need separate tests? I don't want to get rid of xsi:type, but it looks like many fail.

Erik: We don't pass lots of type tests, just not via xsi:type.

Leigh: Is there a strong reason you don't implement xsi:type now?

Erik: I'd have to look.

John: It's a bit of a performance issue; we create pseudo-mips.

Erik: I could check at control binding.

John: It also affects validation.

Erik: Our validation process applies a schema and the goes through the binds. We are lacking the third one looking for xsi:type.

Leigh: So it's not more deep problems; it's just work.

Erik: Right.

John: What about the chapter 5 tests?
... So 5.1.a-d uses xsi:type. We need pairs with bind/@type
... Or change these to use type mip and make one test for xsi:type

http://xformstest.org/2009/02/f2f/tests now has 5.1.a

<John_Boyer> I added/uploaded a new test 5.1.e that tests datatype validation using xsi:type (in prep for converting the other tests to using the XForms type MIP)

http://xformstest.org/2009/02/f2f/tests now has 5.1.*

http://xformstest.org/2009/02/f2f/tests now has 5.2.1.*

http://xformstest.org/2009/02/f2f/tests now has 5.2.6.a

http://xformstest.org/2009/02/f2f/tests 5.2.1.a has changed the invalid anyURI value to "% 6 7" from " Bogus Data "

<Steven> Seen this XForms editor before? http://bpt.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/Oryx/XForms

s/5\.\2\,1\.a/5.1.a/

<John_Boyer> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Test/XForms1.1/Edition1/Chapt04/4.5/4.5.3/4.5.3.a.xhtml

John: Can we test it in FormsPlayer?

Steven: Yes.

John: It notices and puts up an error message but doesn't run the action, so it seems possible but it's technically not passing.

Leigh: And show=replace

Steven: It shows it in a different place

Leigh: Why not remove the feature and let authors use submission/@replace='none' for testing beforehand and let authors who care rely on GET being idempotent?

John: That doesn't implement it properly because it does two gets.

Leigh: No, remove the feature and let authors do it themselves if they care.

John: It's a 1.0 feature

Erik: The world has changed since then and there are non-native implementations.

Leigh: It's possible to do as an author in HTML using XHR and two gets.

Erik: It's not quite correct because it might fail the second time.

Leigh: Yes, that's the Wile E. Coyote problem.

Erik: right.
... So it optional good enough?

John: Optional means one implementor.

Erik: What's weaker than optional?

John: Nothing.
... We did not in status distinguish between recommended and optional. Maybe in the future.

Erik: So we can't go to rec.

Leigh: Unless we take it out.

John: We won't have a formal objection then.

Erik: Mark could make it pass.

John: But he's not working on it.
... So what do you think about removing xforms-link-error? It is a 1.0 feature but nobody is counting on it.

Raman: Remove it and see who screams.

<scribe> ACTION: John Boyer to remove xforms-link-error from 1.1 on the basis that it is not implemented. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/11-forms-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - John

<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jkugelma, jboyer)

http://inwap.com/pdp10/pclsr.txt

http://www.panda.com/tops-20/pclsr-memo.txt

http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/463 also on PCLSR

<Steven> scribe: steven

Community building

Charlie: It would be fun to experiment in Ubiquity with different frameworks in addition to Dojo

John: People outside of this room?

Leigh: We need to see the current stuff working first
... I think I can get involved a bit further along, but not yet

Charlie: Is there anyone who wants to help with Ubiquity

Steven: Not out of the question
... now that Jack Jansen is adding SMIL to Ubiquity

Nick: Not on company time, but maybe in spare time

[John demos Ubiquity]

[with outputs with images in the labels]

[Group debugs example :-) ]

John: How much further along do we need to be?

Leigh: There are things that don't work that stop me from trying it out sufficiently

John: Couldn't you just fix it? It's open source

Leigh: Not enough resources
... I would like to see custom controls being possible

Steven: What's the process of joining

John: Join the contributors' group

<John_Boyer> http://groups.google.com/group/ubiquity-xforms-eng

John: There is more information on that page
... including licensing

Steven: Install SVN?

John: Yes

Raman: There is a web interface

[John explains mechanics of Google code]

[Leigh tries following the instructions]

<wellsk> try this: http://code.google.com/p/ubiquity-xforms/source/browse/trunk/samples/purchaseOrder/purchaseOrder.html

<wellsk> oops: this one http://ubiquity-xforms.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/samples/purchaseOrder/purchaseOrder.html

Modularisation

<John_Boyer> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_1.2_Modularization

John: We had a discussion Monday, but I'm not sure what the resolution of that was
... is there a higher-level view? How do we move forward?

Leigh: Are we doing the modularization or not?

John: I think not, not at the spec level
... there is a modularization at the script level
... We published XForms for HTML in December

Raman: What's stopping us from going to last call?

John: Last call in June would be good
... taking us to CR

Steven: Who will implement?

John: Ubiquity
... success will be over different browsers
... since getting it to work in different browsers is a lot of work
... it takes a lot of work to get through the rec track process,
... another test suite on top of the current one

Leigh: We should write some samples

Charlie: There are some in the Ubiquity project

[John shows an example]

Leigh: We don't want to do full modularization, but we are happy if it gets done for us by Ubiquity.
... The first example we should look for is an instance module

Charlie: Functionally that works today, but the modules are not available yet

Raman: Show how to do the Google suggest equivalent

Leigh: Pick an Ajax library, and look to see what it means for the instance module to work with it

Charlie: I am about to implement the data island module

Raman: You can sell it to people who like the model, and to people who need controls

John: Do people bind controls to JSON objects now?

Charlie: ...
... there are data providers that give notifications
... The repeat module is clearly missing elsewhere, so is a strength for us

John: So are we done?

Uli: Well, there's XForms 2.0

Leigh: We still have to deliver on the charter
... but modularization is not directly serving anyone
... we should be open to take the modules from outside, but we don't have to do it ourselves

<John_Boyer> work items going forward, then, are

<John_Boyer> 1) advancing xforms for html (examples, assertions, test suite),

<John_Boyer> 2) some new xforms 1.2 features to support xforms for html, such as context everywhere and json submissions

<John_Boyer> 3) start analyzing ajax programming and how parts or all of xforms might fit in

<John_Boyer> 4) XForms 2.0

<John_Boyer> 5) Finish XForms 1.1

Leigh: Why do we have to do Basic?

Steven: We can't leave it; either a note or take it to rec

Leigh: 1.1 has subsumed basic in a profile

Raman: Just do it, it is the same amount of work

Leigh: We should add something to the status that points to 1.1 basic profile

John: I favour a note, as being less work

opic: Future meetings

Future meetings

Steven: Amsterdam or London?

Leigh: Amsterdam is easier to argue for

Charlie: I'd like to go somewhere new

Steven: Well, we don't have to decide now. We can just say Amsterdam/London

Uli: London will be more expensive

Raman: But in London Mark will come

Steven: He may well come to Amsterdam
... it's not too far
... And then there's TPAC
... Dates for Europe?

Nick: 8-10 June
... 4 June is the vday

John: London for preference?

Uli: Yes

Leigh: Slightly harder for me then

John: When and where is TPAC?

Uli: San Francisco area, 2-6 November
... 2-6 November

TPAC2009, Santa Clara Marriott, Santa Clara, CA, USA (in conjunction with AC Meeting)

<unl> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/meetings

http://www.w3.org/Member/Eventscal

http://www.w3.org/Member/#foryourcal

<nick> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/meetings

<klotz> http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=w3c+technical+plenary+2009

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/TPOverview.html

EOM?

[ADJOURN]

<nick> 11.10.a

<nick> 11.4.b Corrected instance reference

<nick> 5.1.a Changed xsi:type to MIPs

<nick> 5.1.b Changed xsi:type to MIPs

<nick> 5.1.c Changed xsi:type to MIPs

<nick> 5.1.d Changed xsi:type to MIPs

<nick> 5.2.1.a Changed xsi:type to MIPs

<nick> 5.2.1.b Changed xsi:type to MIPs

<nick> 5.2.1.c Changed xsi:type to MIPs

<nick> Updated those action items

<wellsk> got them

<John_Boyer> also previously checked in new 5.1.e

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/triange/triage/
Succeeded: i/John: Erik has asked about tests /Topic: Testing 1.1
FAILED: i/scribe: Leigh/scribenick: klotz
Succeeded: i/Scribe: Leigh/Scribenick: klotz
Succeeded: s/nad/and/
Succeeded: s/iwth/with/
FAILED: s/5\.\2\,1\.a/5.1.a/
Succeeded: s/tu/ut/
Succeeded: s/than/in addition to/
Succeeded: s/Noton/Not on/
Succeeded: s/How/How /
Succeeded: s/group/ group/
Succeeded: s/AM/Am/
Succeeded: s/AN/An/
Succeeded: s/STeven/Steven/G
Found ScribeNick: klotz
Found Scribe: Leigh
Found Scribe: steven
Inferring ScribeNick: Steven
Scribes: Leigh, steven
ScribeNicks: klotz, Steven
Present: Raman Hubble Uli Leigh Charlie John Erik Nick Steven Keith(remote)
Got date from IRC log name: 11 Feb 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/02/11-forms-minutes.html
People with action items: are boyer each event exception for implementations jboyer john not note required that