15:04:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #forms
15:04:47 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/14-forms-irc
15:04:56 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make log public
15:05:01 <Zakim> +Nick_van_den_Bleeken
15:05:33 <John_Boyer> zakim, this will be forms
15:05:34 <Zakim> ok, John_Boyer, I see Team_(forms)15:04Z already started
15:05:51 <John_Boyer> zakim, code?
15:05:51 <Zakim> the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), John_Boyer
15:06:09 <Zakim> +John_Boyer
15:07:08 <Zakim> + +0782483aaaa
15:07:55 <klotz> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Apr/0008.html
15:08:14 <wiecha> Scribe: wiecha
15:08:25 <wiecha> Topic: Rechartering
15:08:29 <wiecha> Leigh: no news
15:08:38 <wiecha> John: don't think Steven had any either
15:08:41 <wiecha> Topic: Action item review
15:08:51 <wiecha> Nick: updated the list according to F2F and last meetings
15:09:04 <wiecha> there are a couple of resolutions w/o action items
15:09:12 <wiecha> Leigh: ok, let's assign those
15:09:22 <klotz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Apr/0011.html
15:10:23 <wiecha> ACTION: Leigh Klotz to rename XForms for HTML to XForms Attributes for HTML
15:10:23 <trackbot> Created ACTION-615 - Klotz to rename XForms for HTML to XForms Attributes for HTML [on Leigh Klotz, Jr. - due 2010-04-21].
15:11:00 <wiecha> Leigh: the next one, for relaxing constraints, is already done
15:11:10 <wiecha> also for p3ptype
15:11:49 <klotz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Apr/0010.html
15:12:33 <wiecha> Leigh: still think we need to do something on task force for access control
15:12:41 <wiecha> does anybody implement parsing those headers?
15:12:55 <wiecha> XHR will enforce this already
15:13:09 <wiecha> would suggest we add access control back on the on-going agenda
15:13:18 <wiecha> John: let's update our understanding of the requirements here
15:13:37 <wiecha> Leigh: let's otherwise close the action on Mark
15:13:50 <wiecha> and track this as a group on the agenda
15:14:51 <wiecha> action to respond to last call for XHR...we haven't discussed this but did interact with them w/o success
15:14:51 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
15:14:55 <wiecha> so we should close this action
15:15:29 <wiecha> can close steven's action to check on f2f and recharting
15:15:34 <wiecha> and also for kenneth and json issues
15:15:45 <wiecha> forms wg charter w/john boyer is done
15:15:55 <wiecha> John: as would the item on my list
15:16:22 <wiecha> for kenneth, first item on json is done, can close
15:18:00 <wiecha> John: i've also completed my action on form parts...pls close
15:18:26 <wiecha> Topic: Lyon F2F..are we meeting?
15:18:33 <wiecha> Leigh: steven has action to arrange for this
15:18:43 <wiecha> Nick: steven checking on 4-day meeting option
15:18:56 <wiecha> Leigh: so yes, we're meeting...either for 2 days for 4...will report to XCG
15:19:26 <wiecha> Topic: Why are xsd:duration and xforms:duration not supported/defined?
15:19:35 <wiecha> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Apr/0007.html
15:20:43 <wiecha> John: in looking at designing forms starting from existing schemas which make use of xsd:duration have found that xforms:duration is not supported, now say processors support all xsd datatypes except for duration and a few others
15:21:03 <wiecha> but durations are popular in BPM applications :-)
15:21:28 <wiecha> it happens that the schema processor attached to our xforms processor is fine with xsd:duration
15:21:35 <wiecha> so this is just a spec issue 
15:21:48 <wiecha> no type MIP was created
15:21:55 <wiecha> given it's omitted from the spec
15:22:11 <wiecha> Leigh: there are problems with comparison operations
15:22:29 <wiecha> Nick: don't know how many days in a month so comparing two durations is hard
15:22:42 <wiecha> John: yes, but this seems outside the scope of XForms
15:23:01 <wiecha> we have subtypes with ordering, but not the composite type
15:23:10 <wiecha> those are useful additions
15:23:19 <wiecha> but doesn't imply losing xsd:duration
15:24:03 <wiecha> Nick: the spec only says xsd:duration is not recommended for ...
15:24:14 <wiecha> John: Section 5.1 say's they're not supported in totality
15:24:54 <wiecha> John: think this is mistaken...if I can support xsd:duration in my schema and in a type, hard to believe it's not valid in a type MIP
15:25:27 <wiecha> Leigh: supported as abstract datatype
15:25:40 <wiecha> John: yes, this means supported as base type to derive xforms:daytime and yearmonth durations
15:25:51 <wiecha> derived by restriction from xsd:duration
15:26:22 <wiecha> authors should be allowed to use xsd:duration even given its lack of convenience
15:26:35 <wiecha> Leigh: also for xforms:duration?
15:26:47 <wiecha> John: xsd:duration already allows empty string
15:27:10 <wiecha> Nick: do the same for duration as for the other types
15:27:38 <wiecha> John: agree
15:28:29 <wiecha> Leigh: what is the schema for schema for duration?
15:28:35 <wiecha> John: regular expression...
15:28:50 <wiecha> ours would be simpler...just the union of xsd:duration and empty string
15:28:58 <wiecha> could just do an erratum
15:29:08 <wiecha> optional for 1.1 processors...better than not having it at all
15:29:24 <wiecha> current behavior is not having any type restriction at all
15:29:43 <wiecha> Leigh: sounds good for basic type, why also the convenience type now?
15:30:21 <wiecha> John: would be forced to use a schema to define it myself in the app
15:31:06 <wiecha> Leigh: should this be a 1.2 module?
15:31:15 <wiecha> and then suggest implementing it in 1.1 processors...
15:31:25 <wiecha> Leigh: what's the cut between errata and 1.2?
15:31:41 <wiecha> John: for xsd:duration, claim it's not supported seems to be basically wrong
15:31:58 <wiecha> since it can be used directly in the type MIP
15:32:19 <wiecha> and our intention was to define the corresponding empty type for each supported xsd type
15:33:11 <klotz> Since XML Schema Part X does not define xs:duration as an abstract type, it is erroneous for XForms 1.1 to attempt to redefine it as such in a note.
15:33:58 <wiecha> John: then we could introduce the xforms type in the schema which is already not normative so updateable
15:34:10 <wiecha> Leigh: so the argument for 1.1 erratum is that it's incorrect as stated
15:34:27 <wiecha> Leigh: any opinion this should be delayed to 1.2?
15:34:34 <wiecha> (no response)
15:35:34 <wiecha> proposed resolution: amend the note stating xsd:duration is unsupported to allow for its use
15:36:00 <John_Boyer> In 5.1, XForms supports all XML schema 1.0 data types except... remove xsd:duration from that list
15:37:03 <John_Boyer> In the following note, The built-in datatype xsd:duration does not support a total ordering.  Form authors are encouraged to used xforms:dayTimeDuration or xforms:yearMonthDuration instead
15:38:03 <John_Boyer> In 5.2.1, add duration to list of built-in primitive types in the xforms namespace
15:39:17 <wiecha> Resolution: xsd:duration and the xforms:duration including empty string is also supported
15:39:41 <wiecha> ACTION: John_Boyer to write erratum supporting xsd:duration and xforms:duration
15:39:41 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - John_Boyer
15:40:33 <wiecha> Nick: have a 1.2 item related to this
15:40:44 <wiecha> ACTION: John_Boyer to create erratum category on the forms wiki
15:40:44 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - John_Boyer
15:41:45 <wiecha> Nick: would like to get opinion on moving to xsd 1.1 part 2 data types in xforms 1.2
15:41:47 <wiecha> Leigh: is 1.1 rec?
15:42:14 <wiecha> Nick: still a WD
15:42:22 <wiecha> Leigh: think something is coming out soon
15:42:28 <wiecha> John: what is the NS for those types?
15:42:40 <wiecha> Leigh: would think it would be the same
15:42:58 <wiecha> Nick: xsd 1.1 is intended backwards compat. with 1.0
15:43:23 <wiecha> John: that's good since it would then be feasible for implementors to add those new types to schemas to provide all of xforms types
15:43:36 <wiecha> i.e. to avoid NS conflicts
15:44:25 <wiecha> Leigh: idea sounds fine depending on dates when drafts/recs published
15:44:35 <wiecha> John: also the question on the rest of xsd 1.1 not just the types
15:44:41 <wiecha> Nick: right, the types are the easy part
15:45:11 <wiecha> John: Phillip mentioned the utility of the assertion mechanism relative to xf:constraint
15:45:49 <wiecha> may cause some issues related to live validation when data are changing vs. validating one-time 
15:46:08 <wiecha> Phillip: yes 
15:46:31 <wiecha> John: constraints run during recalculate, schema runs during revalidate
15:46:49 <wiecha> so you'd have calculation like constraints running after the "calculate" phase is over
15:46:59 <wiecha> not saying this won't work...just not sure
15:47:21 <wiecha> Nick: just run schema processor every time
15:47:30 <wiecha> Leigh: global or tied to nodes?
15:48:02 <wiecha> need to add the general use of xsd 1.1 to the list of topics to discuss
15:48:25 <wiecha> Topic: model/@src use cases
15:48:37 <wiecha> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2010Apr/0003.html
15:48:45 <wiecha> also 0004 and 0005
15:50:07 <wiecha> Nick: still think that form parts look like custom components, and importing models is a bit different...john seems to agree
15:50:24 <wiecha> John: yes, feel that form parts is interesting but there's also XBL
15:50:32 <wiecha> those are more generic composite controls
15:50:56 <wiecha> form parts is a design-time injection of code...little closer to runtime model/@src but does two injections (model and control)
15:51:19 <wiecha> John: the important bit is defining the injection points into the UI layer
15:51:28 <wiecha> the model position isn't really functional
15:51:57 <wiecha> so external model imports using something like @src or @import is simpler than these two alternatives
15:52:06 <wiecha> Leigh: when you generate the data layer how do you avoid name conflicts?
15:52:11 <wiecha> John: programmatic renaming at design time
15:52:39 <wiecha> so @id conflict resolution is easier for us - no runtime issues
15:52:55 <wiecha> Leigh: if we used model/@src we'd depend on unique @id's
15:53:07 <wiecha> so why is include not good enough?
15:53:49 <wiecha> John: faster for us to get it in just as a design-time feature
15:54:41 <wiecha> Leigh: why does your use case suggest model/@src vs. include?
15:54:44 <wiecha> John: not sure it does
15:55:11 <wiecha> Leigh: this is my concern...that it seems just doing something very close to include is not sufficient
15:55:35 <wiecha> John: the other reason we're doing form parts is we have two injection points...more important is the UI one
15:55:59 <wiecha> w/o doing nested forms and model-model communication, form parts gives us reuse
15:56:24 <wiecha> so it we can't do both injection points model/@src probably isn't useful
15:57:16 <wiecha> John: simple case of reusable web services declarations would be useful
15:57:22 <wiecha> Leigh: include would probably handle that though
15:58:14 <wiecha> lack of parameters on straight inclusion is a problem
15:59:03 <wiecha> Leigh: one approach is to start with something simple, other option is not not "use up" that syntax and make the real solution harder
15:59:09 <wiecha> John: I'm winding up in that latter camp
16:00:32 <wiecha> Leigh: could start with model/@src with scoping rules
16:00:49 <wiecha> John: could then expand later with a portion of a document that contains UI w/updated content
16:00:58 <wiecha> Leigh: starts looking like xpointer
16:01:20 <wiecha> John: would probably focus on the UI injection and handle the model part as a side-effect
16:01:35 <wiecha> Leigh: in summary what's the take-away from your use case and model/@src?
16:01:47 <wiecha> John: like the @id scoping resolution to get closer to form parts
16:01:55 <wiecha> seems to be unavoidable part of a solution
16:02:00 <wiecha> Leigh: some form of encapsulation
16:02:02 <wiecha> John: yes
16:02:24 <wiecha> then if we could use that import element *anywhere* and if it had UI and model elements it would "do the right thing" in terms of import
16:02:39 <wiecha> Leigh: sounds like Nick's point that this sounds like a component
16:02:59 <wiecha> John: perhaps, but some of the other component technologies are a bit more complex in separating submodels
16:03:06 <wiecha> Leigh: that's a more extreme version of encapsulation
16:03:17 <wiecha> John: right...this leads to all the model-model communication issues
16:03:29 <wiecha> import for model only, the fragments just work together
16:04:24 <wiecha> Leigh: Nick, can you pick this up by email?
16:04:34 <wiecha> not sure what's the next step
16:04:40 <wiecha> Leigh: ok, let's pick it up in the next call
16:04:58 <Zakim> -Leigh_Klotz
16:04:59 <Zakim> - +0782483aaaa
16:05:00 <Zakim> -ebruchez
16:05:02 <Zakim> -John_Boyer
16:05:02 <Zakim> -Nick_van_den_Bleeken
16:05:05 <wiecha> rrsagent, make minutes
16:05:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/14-forms-minutes.html wiecha
16:05:29 <John_Boyer> zakim, who is here?
16:05:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see wiecha
16:05:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, klotz, wiecha, nick, ebruchez, John_Boyer, pfennell, Zakim, trackbot
16:05:45 <wiecha> zakim, bye
16:05:45 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were ebruchez, Leigh_Klotz, wiecha, Nick_van_den_Bleeken, John_Boyer, +0782483aaaa
16:05:45 <Zakim> Zakim has left #forms
16:05:52 <wiecha> rrsagent, make minutes
16:05:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/14-forms-minutes.html wiecha
16:05:56 <John_Boyer> :-)
16:06:20 <pfennell> bye
16:06:22 <wiecha> rrsagent, bye
16:06:22 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/14-forms-actions.rdf :
16:06:22 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Leigh Klotz to rename XForms for HTML to XForms Attributes for HTML [1]
16:06:22 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/14-forms-irc#T15-10-23
16:06:22 <RRSAgent> ACTION: John_Boyer to write erratum supporting xsd:duration and xforms:duration [2]
16:06:22 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/14-forms-irc#T15-39-41
16:06:22 <RRSAgent> ACTION: John_Boyer to create erratum category on the forms wiki [3]
16:06:22 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/14-forms-irc#T15-40-44