13:52:45 RRSAgent has joined #forms 13:52:45 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/06/11-forms-irc 13:54:15 John_Boyer has joined #forms 13:54:27 zakim, code? 13:54:27 sorry, John_Boyer, I don't know what conference this is 13:54:32 zakim, this will be forms 13:54:32 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, John_Boyer 13:57:28 zakim, room for 10 people for 360 mins? 13:57:29 ok, John_Boyer; conference Team_(forms)13:57Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 360 minutes until 1957Z 13:57:43 zakim, this will be forms 13:57:43 ok, John_Boyer; I see Team_(forms)13:57Z scheduled to start now 13:57:58 zakim, room for 10 people for 400 mins? 13:57:58 John_Boyer, an adhoc conference was scheduled here less than 2 minutes ago 13:58:26 rrsagent, make log public 13:59:05 Meeting: W3C Forms WG Virtual Face to Face Day, 11 June 2009 14:01:40 unl has joined #forms 14:01:45 Team_(forms)13:57Z has now started 14:01:53 +John_Boyer 14:02:18 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/vFtF_2009_06_11 14:02:31 John_Boyer has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/vFtF_2009_06_11 14:02:53 zakim, dial steven-617 14:02:53 ok, Steven; the call is being made 14:02:54 +Steven 14:03:21 zakim, code? 14:03:21 the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), nick 14:03:45 +[IPcaller] 14:03:49 wiecha has joined #forms 14:03:58 zakim, code? 14:03:59 the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), wiecha 14:04:04 zakim, I am [IPCaller] 14:04:04 ok, nick, I now associate you with [IPcaller] 14:04:25 +[IBM] 14:04:33 zakim, [IBM] is wiecha 14:04:33 +wiecha; got it 14:05:09 +unl 14:05:39 zakim, mute me 14:05:39 unl should now be muted 14:06:06 Chair: John 14:06:06 zakim, who is here? 14:06:06 On the phone I see John_Boyer, Steven, [IPcaller], wiecha, unl (muted) 14:06:08 On IRC I see wiecha, unl, John_Boyer, RRSAgent, Zakim, nick, Steven, kenneth_, markbirbeck, trackbot 14:06:42 Scribe: Charlie 14:07:23 CONF1 14:07:28 scribe: wiecha 14:07:37 Regrets: None 14:08:21 Topic: Disposition of Comments on XForms 1.1 CR 14:09:01 Steven: is the first issue on the list an actual issue? 14:09:07 ...before the date of CR draft 14:09:15 John: thinking we could skip that one since it was also answered 14:09:21 Steven: what's the answer? 14:09:42 John: in December... 14:10:17 ...we've been pretty good about answering everything in this list... 14:10:42 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2009/xforms11-PR-DoC.html 14:11:08 John: issue disguised as question 14:11:17 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007Dec/0000.html 14:12:23 ...nature of events allows for the utility of iteration in cases that were questioned 14:12:34 ...even more so, we're trying to be modular 14:12:58 ...and not introduce exceptions where not needed 14:13:09 ...disposition is "answered" 14:13:32 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007Dec/0001.html 14:14:35 rejected since the example cited is actually correct 14:14:52 +kenneth 14:15:00 Nick (author): I'm ok with that result 14:15:20 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007Dec/0003.html 14:15:38 John: accepted and fixed in sped 14:15:41 s/sped/spec 14:16:03 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2008Jan/0000.html 14:16:59 accepted 14:17:20 ...but not replied 14:17:33 ...changed in spec 14:17:48 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2008Jan/0001.html 14:19:39 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#submit-submission-element 14:19:45 editorial 14:19:58 modified and accepted 14:20:23 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2008Jan/0002.html 14:21:16 duplicate, replied directly 14:21:37 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2008Feb/0000.html 14:21:54 accepted and updated in spec 14:22:13 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2008Feb/0001.html 14:22:55 accepted and fixed 14:23:29 Steven: s/Ficed/Fixed/ 14:23:58 I had already ficed that one ;-) 14:25:26 s/accepted/modified 14:25:39 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2008Feb/0002.html 14:25:57 accepted and changed 14:26:15 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2008Apr/0000.html 14:27:59 editorial, rejected as cases are different 14:28:06 originator accepts 14:28:22 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2008Apr/0002.html 14:28:44 accepted and changed 14:28:52 author accepts 14:29:16 editorial 14:29:29 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2008Jun/0000.html 14:33:15 -wiecha 14:33:18 scribe: nick 14:34:48 Fixed this and send direct response 14:35:47 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2008Nov/0000.html 14:36:45 accepted and fixed it replied on the other list 14:37:18 is editorial 14:38:15 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2009Jan/0000.html 14:38:20 accept & fix 14:39:08 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2009Jan/0001.html 14:46:29 rrsagent, pointer? 14:46:29 See http://www.w3.org/2009/06/11-forms-irc#T14-46-29 14:47:13 The person who raised this issue with me verbally caused me to write this email, but it is clear that their point is invalid since their method creates non well-formed XML, so I withdraw the comment asking for a clarification 14:47:30 This is about issues http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2009Jan/0001.html 14:47:38 s/iisues/issue 14:47:44 s/issues/issue 14:49:41 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2009Feb/0001.html 14:50:19 accept and fixed, clarification 14:50:32 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2009Mar/0000.html 14:50:42 REJECT 14:51:19 Steven: We should ask Vlad to respond positive on it 14:53:51 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2009/xforms11-PR-DoC.html 14:54:30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2009Mar/0001.html 14:55:23 ebruchez has joined #forms 15:04:05 editorial issues accepted 15:04:40 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2009Mar/0002.html 15:06:12 editorial, fixed, replied to 15:06:30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2009May/0001.html 15:06:39 good morning, what's the call-in information? 15:06:49 zakim, code? 15:06:49 the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), nick 15:07:10 thanks Nick/Zakim ;) 15:07:44 +ebruchez 15:12:39 editorial, modify and accept, replied too 15:12:46 s/too/to/ 15:14:17 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2009May/0005.html 15:14:23 editorial, fixed, replied 15:14:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2009Jun/0003.html 15:15:21 the answer is already in the spec, no change necessary, replied 15:16:37 zakim, unmute me 15:16:37 unl should no longer be muted 15:20:48 zakim, mute me 15:20:48 unl should now be muted 15:25:44 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007Dec/0001.html 15:26:08 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007Dec/0002 15:26:17 Nick,. are you happy with that reply? 15:26:22 rrsagent, pointer? 15:26:22 See http://www.w3.org/2009/06/11-forms-irc#T15-26-22 15:26:26 I'm happy with the response http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007Dec/0002 for http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007Dec/0001.html 15:27:10 rrsagent, pointer? 15:27:10 See http://www.w3.org/2009/06/11-forms-irc#T15-27-10 15:27:17 I am happy with the reply at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2008Apr/0001 15:29:19 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2008Jan/0001.html 15:37:25 For me '11.2 The xforms-submit Event - concurrent submissions' is an accept not a Modify and Accept, we just reworded what he was proposing 15:40:15 John: agree that '11.2 The xforms-submit Event - concurrent submissions' is just an Accept 15:44:29 looks good 15:44:41 John: yes 15:46:29 Steven: Do we resolve to add a link to the DC in the current draft? 15:47:41 John: OK 15:47:52 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/vFtF_2009_06_11 15:48:37 Steven: We can just change the status, the original resolution was about the content not the status 15:51:12 TOPIC: Agenda and XForms 1.2 15:52:16 I think these http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/vFtF_2009_06_11 items are the ones which are most urgent and we prob. can get the most velocity on those 15:52:32 s/I think/John: I think/ 15:53:00 John: Most of the items are just small diffs, there are only a few of multiple pages 15:53:55 John: People can produce the spec ready text in the next week, and we can talk about it next week 15:54:06 John: Is this a descent plan? 15:54:13 group: aggrees 15:54:20 s/descent/decent/ 15:55:40 John: Next on the agenda are some items that need some more discussion... the Focus on Submission Improvements are probably not going to be completed in 1 hour 15:56:36 John: The focus on UI improvements needs to be probably going to be discussed on the list first because we are an hour late 15:56:51 break 15:56:53 -unl 15:56:54 -kenneth 15:56:54 -Steven 15:56:56 -ebruchez 15:56:57 -John_Boyer 15:57:03 -[IPcaller] 15:57:04 Team_(forms)13:57Z has ended 15:57:05 Attendees were John_Boyer, Steven, [IPcaller], wiecha, unl, kenneth, ebruchez 15:57:34 rrsagent, make minutes 15:57:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/06/11-forms-minutes.html John_Boyer 16:59:27 zakim, code? 16:59:27 the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), wiecha 17:01:03 Team_(forms)13:57Z has now started 17:01:06 +kenneth 17:01:10 +[IBM] 17:01:15 zakim, [IBM] is wiecha 17:01:15 +wiecha; got it 17:01:53 +John_Boyer 17:03:18 zakim, who is here? 17:03:18 On the phone I see wiecha, kenneth, John_Boyer 17:03:19 On IRC I see ebruchez, wiecha, John_Boyer, RRSAgent, Zakim, nick, Steven, kenneth_, markbirbeck, trackbot 17:03:28 +ebruchez 17:03:46 zakim, code? 17:03:46 the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), nick 17:03:49 scribe: wiecha 17:04:11 +??P16 17:04:19 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/vFtF_2009_06_11 17:04:26 zakim, I am ??P16 17:04:27 +nick; got it 17:05:02 Topic: Create Team Plan for PFWD of XForms 1.2 17:05:20 PicoForms and Orbeon have lists of features already implemented and also high priority items 17:05:23 linked above 17:05:31 many are already on future-features list 17:05:41 and some have been implemented as well by others in their own ways 17:05:53 implying there's a good place to start wrt standardization 17:05:55 unl has joined #forms 17:05:59 zakim, who is here? 17:05:59 On the phone I see wiecha, kenneth, John_Boyer, ebruchez, nick 17:06:00 On IRC I see unl, ebruchez, wiecha, John_Boyer, RRSAgent, Zakim, nick, Steven, kenneth_, markbirbeck, trackbot 17:06:13 John: tried to go through longer list on this link: 17:06:13 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/Future_Goals 17:06:34 ...and to delete things that weren't as important, urgent, big etc 17:06:43 s/big/too big 17:06:56 ...so have a list of things that are quickly doable 17:07:15 +unl 17:07:20 e.g. case() function 17:08:00 ...vs. something like dialogs will require more technical work...not so low-hanging fruit 17:08:42 ...will likely be other things going into 1.2 but wanted to have a list to start quickly on 17:08:53 ...for the june f2f (e2e) days 17:09:05 ...pls suggest others if you have them 17:09:49 ...let's go through sequentially and set some action items for first draft of spec-like text 17:10:05 ...first is context everywhere, context on bind elements 17:10:19 ...top of the list due to thematic clustering not priority -- not a prioritized list 17:10:26 ...first two points are about xpath 17:10:50 ...issue with this item is there's already an action item, did work in binding attributes spec 17:11:03 ...talking about creating a delta spec as first working draft of xforms 1.2 17:11:16 ...so some of the work is to take previous text and rework into paragraphs for delta spec 17:11:53 ACTION: John_Boyer to write up first spec text for context everywhere, context on bind elements 17:11:53 Sorry, couldn't find user - John_Boyer 17:12:15 John: next topic is custom xpath functions, also from host language, e.g. js 17:12:33 ...understand there are implementers doing custom xpath functions in various ways 17:12:37 e.g. ubiquity xforms 17:12:47 ...also in picoforms? (yes) 17:12:54 ...not yet in orbeon 17:13:10 Erik: Kenneth, do you have examples of syntax to do this? 17:13:22 Kenneth: yes, we support several scripting languages in addition to JS 17:13:31 ...is this from API or markup level? guessing from markup 17:13:51 Kenneth: ok, I can send something to the list 17:13:55 zakim, dial steven-617 17:13:55 ok, Steven; the call is being made 17:13:57 +Steven 17:14:07 17:14:34 function currency(value, digits) { 17:14:38 ...} 17:15:05 17:15:43 xmlns:javascript="http://www.w3.org/2002/xforms#inline" 17:15:49 Nick: do you require an XML declaration? 17:16:34 John: in the case of JS we just defined a namespace below xforms with #inline...could talk about what that looks like... 17:16:48 ...when looking for functions in that namespace, there's an implementation defined way to get to those inline functions 17:17:18 there's no definition of how to resolve, just how to reference 17:17:36 Nick: in some JS implementations need a declaration of arg list and types etc 17:17:49 John: yup, makes sense 17:18:26 ...one of the goals of the stds effort is to get things to interoperate 17:19:10 ...if each impl followed its own methods for resolving references, the markup itself would still interoperate 17:19:35 Erik: thought the idea was to be able to define xpath functions using xforms itself...a combination of actions 17:20:01 John: we should look at both 17:20:45 ...am very interested in composing actions as well 17:21:09 s/very/most 17:21:19 s/as well// 17:21:56 Eric: clearly use cases for both 17:22:16 s/Eric/Erik 17:22:33 Erik: seems like the work is fairly different for the two cases 17:23:26 John: functions should not have side effects 17:23:49 ...if we run a set of actions that cause events which then take other "actions" can be problematic 17:24:07 ...e.g. during calculate start get insert and delete events which cause setvalue actions etc etc 17:24:12 s/calculate/recalculate 17:24:35 ...no way to determine order if calculations have side effects with dependencies that are not visibile 17:24:45 ...same problem for custom JS which calls DOM API 17:25:03 Charlie: forces complete rebuild 17:25:34 Erik: good point but inevitable with general extensibiility through xpath 17:25:47 ...not fixable other than telling function implementors to be careful 17:26:11 ...safe vs. unsafe actions -- impossible to avoid the problem entirely 17:27:12 ...some use cases are ok, ... (lists couple of examples, missed details) 17:27:59 Nick: what are the use cases of functions that change the DOM? maybe if we have fns that don't change anything vs those that do we can avoid the problem 17:28:34 John: yes, by limiting the parameter stack... 17:28:37 correction have custom actions, than can change the DOM 17:29:24 Erik: or for example not show updates until after query completes to limit scope of changes 17:29:54 ...harder to handle in procedural languages than, for example, in xquery update 17:30:16 ...can contain potential scope of changes and do analysis more readily 17:30:38 John: yes, but back to Nick's point if we create custom "actions" do we need xpath functions that also perform mutations? 17:30:59 ...reading xpath 1.0 there's no support for fns that do updates 17:31:03 Nick: neither in xpath 2.0 17:31:24 ...and even in xquery update can only update a given subtree once during any given query 17:31:45 Erik: proposal would be functions w/o side effects affecting the DOM and secondly reusable actions which can be easily called 17:32:24 ...we currently simulate reusable actions by dispatching events to approximate procedure calls 17:33:05 John: when talking about custom xpath fns in terms of xforms actions we talked about limiting scope of what they could mutate to just local variables 17:33:39 ...a fn implementation would have local model, for local vars, produce return result...only mutate within this local scope 17:33:57 ...might contain the complexity 17:34:22 ...start with a somewhat limited functional scope like this and see if more is needed later 17:34:52 John: is this a topic that anybody wants to drive? with first draft of spec-like text for 1.2??? 17:35:14 Erik: not sure if we should skip it but someone who has already implemented it would be great 17:35:24 ...don't know if anyone has yet done it... 17:35:47 ...might be good to have somebody experiment first 17:36:33 John: not sure if there's much diff between javascript invocation with limited scope and xforms actions that operate over local model... 17:36:50 -nick 17:37:24 ...typically have implementors who have multiple designs different from the "standard" one which usually happens during CR phase when they migrate to the spec mechanism 17:37:41 Charlie: thought Erik was proposing doing that first 17:37:51 John: not xforms actions version, no 17:38:05 Erik: there are use cases that are much simpler...not necessarily with nested models etc 17:38:16 ...e.g. xpath expression reuse 17:38:31 ...over multiple lines, particularly in xpath 2.0 with conditions, for etc 17:38:44 ...happens in xpath 1.0 too 17:38:50 nick has joined #forms 17:38:54 zakim, code? 17:38:54 the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), nick 17:38:57 Erik: just having a short-cut form for longer xpath expressions would be useful 17:39:15 ...could be a simple templating mechanism 17:39:25 +??P13 17:39:36 zakim, ??P13 17:39:37 I don't understand '??P13', nick 17:39:46 zakim, I am ??P13 17:39:46 +nick; got it 17:40:34 John: biggest problem with that kind of "function" (which could run an xpath that referenced instance data in the model rather than its parameters) is also a problem for recalculate engine 17:40:58 John: unless input parms are the only things the reusable xpath can operate on then have problem seeing dependencies of a calculate containing that fn call 17:41:03 Erik: yes, have that problem in general 17:41:53 ...as per previous discussion have to run the xpath expressions any way to determine dependencies 17:42:34 John: the problem is when we calculate nodes an expression is dependent on, with a fn call the only nodes we see are those that are used to form parms, return result 17:42:43 Kenneth: usual for impl to look at the actual body 17:42:58 ...e.g. in JS, more complex but not always just the external signature 17:43:09 Erik: not sure about the JS case but for xpath should be doable 17:43:41 ...looking at the expression tree -- supports both static and dynamic analysis 17:43:59 ...can contain fn calls to sub-xpath expressions as well 17:44:50 John: need to see nested xpath expressions up at the dependency graph level 17:45:10 Erik: you'd build a single expression tree in xpath 17:45:19 ...so can optimize over entire tree 17:45:39 ...so doesn't matter if expression is nested in custom fns or inlined 17:45:45 John: more of macro substitution 17:45:49 Erik: same effect 17:45:54 ...but smarter than macros 17:46:07 ...xslt already has fns, xquery too 17:46:29 ...except for scoping behavior is the same as in-lined code 17:47:08 John: even in case of running actions, those are expressed in terms of xpath-based attributes (ref, origin, etc) 17:47:31 ...we could still possibly end up with a way to analyze a composite action-based fn to determine its dependencies 17:48:13 Erik: yes, by building a unified tree of xpath and xforms actions 17:48:20 What about : 17:48:20 17:48:20 17:48:20 17:48:20 17:48:21 17:48:31 or something like that 17:48:55 John: coming back to question of anybody want to take this one? 17:49:40 Erik: unless we have a proposal, maybe look at other stuff first 17:49:44 ...but this is interesting 17:50:53 Erik: there is a set of missing xpath functions needed in xforms...not "custom" but more pre-defined that people need 17:51:11 ...extensions to xforms fn library 17:51:33 ...number, time, date formatting for example 17:51:47 ...we took xslt fns and exposed into our own namespace so we can use in xforms...are lots more 17:52:00 ...good candidates for xforms 1.2 update 17:52:08 zakim, mute me 17:52:08 unl should now be muted 17:52:11 John: if there's some docs we could look at this would be helpful 17:52:18 s/there's/there are 17:52:45 John: good transition to bottom point, mechanism to adopt xpath 2.0 optionally 17:52:57 ...even if on model we say i'm xforms 1.2 and xpath is 2.0 17:53:44 ...will pick up some of the fns just described 17:54:25 Erik: better to just implement xpath 2.0, yes 17:54:37 ..rather than adding lots of stuff by copy to xforms 17:55:00 Nick: some fns in xforms have same names as xpath 2.0 but have slightly different results 17:55:09 For reference, the XProc spec's take on XPath 1/2 http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/#xpath-context 17:55:20 John: to do in "dot" release would have to declare at model level which version of xpath you're using 17:55:37 ...so backlevel forms will be compatible 17:56:51 Erik: XProc has xpath-version to control this 17:57:12 ...with exception if content asks for xpath 2.0 and it's not available 17:57:31 John: this is a good pattern to look at, continues the path toward xpath 2.0 17:57:46 ...makes it optionally available, then maybe in xforms 2.0 it's the only version 17:57:54 ...becomes just available in dot release 17:58:14 Nick: in xproc is it at top-level only or can switch within the doc? 17:58:26 Erik: yes, seems possible in narrower scopes -- 17:58:35 ...it's different in xproc since the steps are fairly isolated 17:58:50 ...not sure if this still makes sense in xforms 17:58:57 John: don't do this in model with @version 17:59:18 ...@version on default model governs all models on the page...coarse grained and this is ok 17:59:39 Nick: that's ok but in xslt can do finer grained...stuff you're importing can be different 17:59:59 John: might be helpful to say on a model-by-model basis what engine is used 18:00:12 Nick: might be a bit confusing since at the UI layer can switch between models 18:00:18 John: right 18:00:25 ...let's walk first 18:01:10 Erik: actions outside of model, and switch in UI, ... what's the default? could be come messy 18:02:07 Erik: can also put xpath 2.0 impl in 1.0 mode...close but not exact. would allow not having two impls of xpath 18:05:03 ACTION: nick to work up xpath 2.0 as optional for dot release of XForms 18:05:03 Created ACTION-549 - Work up xpath 2.0 as optional for dot release of XForms [on Nick Van Den Bleeken - due 2009-06-18]. 18:05:19 John: should also include discussion of xpath version attr 18:05:32 Nick: yes, will also look at list of fns that might conflict with xpath 2.0 18:05:51 John: would be very helpful to include in spec writeup 18:06:21 -Steven 18:06:28 -unl 18:12:40 back 18:12:55 zakim, dial steven-617 18:12:55 ok, Steven; the call is being made 18:12:57 +Steven 18:13:25 scribe: Steven 18:13:33 John: Alright 18:14:53 TOPIC: XML Events 2 18:15:44 John: In XHTML 2 XForms was adopted, is XML Events 2 is also in XHTML 2 18:15:50 Steven: Yes 18:18:17 Nick: I had a look at integrating XML Events 2 in XForms and we had a meeting about it at the previous Tech Plan 18:19:00 +unl 18:19:08 Steven: I think everything has been ironed out 18:19:39 John: We need a delta spec for using XML Events 2 18:21:47 Nick: For example dispatch is now dispatchEvent nd targetid is now destid 18:22:04 s/nd/and/ 18:22:49 ACTION : Steven to write spec ready text for adopting XML Events 2 in XForms 1.2 18:22:49 Created ACTION-550 - Write spec ready text for adopting XML Events 2 in XForms 1.2 [on Steven Pemberton - due 2009-06-18]. 18:23:10 XML Events 2 has the same namespace 18:23:23 TOPIC: Node "create" action 18:25:32 Nick: Do you want an action to create a node, or is xpath function that creates a node sufficient, and use our insert action to insert the node 18:26:21 John: That sounds good then we can use the standard insert action and eventing 18:26:31 zakim, who is here? 18:26:31