See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 11 April 2012
<Steven_> Scribe: John
<ebruchez> zakim +1.650.919.aacc is ebruchez
<Steven_> Scribenick: John_Boyer
<ebruchez> all, I am calling from my cell and will be in my car for ~15 mn, might be "listen-only" for that time
Finding co-chair in progress, two candidates
Steven and Nick will be working in Amsterdam Wed and Thu next week
Work Wednesday, bring issues to next call, then work Thursday
Longer call next week, 2 hours, starting at normal time
Please check wikipedia pages in languages you understand
update as necessary
Leigh noticed that XForms is a Japanese international standard (JIS)
(on Japanese wikipedia page)
<scribe> ACTION: Steven please add Michael Sperberg-McQueen's XForms course to News Items [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/04/11-forms-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1886 - Please add Michael Sperberg-McQueen's XForms course to News Items [on Steven Pemberton - due 2012-04-18].
<scribe> ACTION: Steven please ask Leigh if he would be interested in chairing users community group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/04/11-forms-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1887 - Please ask Leigh if he would be interested in chairing users community group [on Steven Pemberton - due 2012-04-18].
Alain: Leigh already tweeted about chairing this group
Nick: formally we have to vote but I don't mind if Leigh is chair
Alain: I just voted for him
Nick: There is a poll, I sent a link last week
Alain: When you go to the page, it already says Leigh is chairing
<scribe> ACTION: Steven please add Community group link to working group home page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/04/11-forms-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1888 - Please add Community group link to working group home page [on Steven Pemberton - due 2012-04-18].
<nvdbleek> this is my reply http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2012Apr/0011.html
John: In that email, Nick says UI bindings are not restricted, but I think they are. Did something get removed?
<Steven> Scribe: Steven
Nick: I did a reading of the spec, and couldn't find any restrictions
<inserted> Scribenick: John_Boyer
John: In input element for
... Data binding restriction
<Steven> ScribeNick: John_Boyer
John: Most ui elements have this
data binding restriction that says what they can bind to
... Even though ref attr can now do Nodeset binding, the actual spec for input still says "Single node binding" so the ref will be boiled down to one node.
... Then the data binding restriction says it has to be a leaf
<Steven> Data Binding Restrictions: Binds to any simpleContent (except xsd:base64Binary, xsd:hexBinary or any datatype derived from these).
John: All the controls have these restrictions in XForms 1.1
Erik: Yes I remember those, but question is whether or to what extent should be lifting those restrictions?
Nick: Especially for repeats to repeat over sequences
Erik: In our implementation we
reached conclusion that we should not throw an error if a
repeat binds to a sequence 1 to 10. #1 it works out of the box,
and #2 it was a good use case
... Not having this meant you had to do loops that generated instance values, very messy
... It is most useful for repeat and itemset
... Opens up what used to be a Nodeset binding to more interesting use cases, but it is less useful for single node bindings.
... It could be useful for output element too, but not as big a requirement due to value attribute
Nick: It makes some sense for a range control
John: Really, where do you put the input result?
Nick: It is useful reuse the
range control to display a value but it behaves as if
... Could be useful for custom controls too
Erik: For implementer, better not
to restrict because there is no benefit.
... You already have to support readonly controls, so there is no harm in binding in a readonly way to atomic values
John: Benefits implementers, but does it benefit or is it a detraction to authors?
Steven: are there any restrictions we should have?
John: OK to lift restrictions as
long as they are replaced with description of what the behavior
would be, and so far the only stmt I've heard is that binding
to things that aren't instance nodes means behave as
... Any other behavior comments needed?
Erik: Something more to be said for repeats
Erik: We say what happens to repeat collections in terms of when you insert or delete instance data nodes, and that would have to be updated to account for things that are not nodes
<ebruchez> repeat ref="1 to 10"
<ebruchez> repeat ref="1 to 11"
Erik: Also, unlike DOM nodes,
atomic values can be identical without being the same
... In above, the repeat object needs to be updated with the 11. The 1 to 10 are different objects but are identical
... If you implement XForms 1.1 already, it is not hard. If it is not a node, you just compare values.
Steven: What happens in your implementation when it goes to 1 to 11?
Erik: If the 1 to 10 are in same
order, then those repeat objects aren't changed, and just one
new repeat object shows up corresponding to 11
... If the sequence order changes, then more repeat objects get updated
Steven: Nick is there any more info needed to update spec?
Nick: We need a resolution on
whether repeat and itemset can bind to atomic elements
... Need a separate one for whether other controls can bind to atomic values
John: Do you also mean XForms bind too? or just repeat and itemset?
Erik: We haven't done work on that?
Steven: Perhaps it should be in bind too?
Nick: We need to consider whether model item property attributes can result in atomic values too.
Erik: that could be a binding
... Are you saying that we need to consider whether MIPs would attach to atomic values?
John: No I misinterpreted what Nick was saying as the thing I was thinking about, which is that MIP expressions could result in an atomic values. The issue of attaching MIPs to an atomic value is separate
Steven: What's the blocking issue?
Erik: Can you write <bind ref="1 to 10" required="true()"/> ?
Steven: OK so we need to decide whether to ignore it or throw an error.
John: Also, can you say <bind ref="some/node" calculate="1 to 10"/>
Nick: that will be a space-separated string with values from 1 to 10. the result, even if atomic, is converted to string for calculate or boolean for other MIPs like relevant
Erik: It would be good if we could just point to XPath 2.0 to specify how the conversion happens
Nick: We already say that, it is converted as if by calling boolean or string function
<Steven> Proposal 1: Allow repeat/itemset etc to bind to literals
<Steven> etc = wherever @nodeset is used
<Steven> Proposal 2: When binding input etc controls to literals, the control becomes read-only
<Steven> Proposal 3: When using <bind/> to bind to a literal, MIPS will be ignored
<Steven> Proposal 4: When using <bind/> to bind to a literal, generate an exception
John: etc is bad, need to look at all uses of nodeset, e.g. insert and delete
<Steven> ISSUE: What to do with insert and delete on a literal
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-1 - What to do with insert and delete on a literal ; please complete additional details at https://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/xforms/issues/1/edit .
RESOLUTION: Allow repeat/itemset and other uses of nodeset to bind to literals (some details still to be worked out, e.g. insert/delete)
<scribe> ACTION: Nick to implement in spec the resolution to allow repeat, itemset and other uses of nodeset to bind to literals [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/04/11-forms-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1889 - Implement in spec the resolution to allow repeat, itemset and other uses of nodeset to bind to literals [on Nick Van Den Bleeken - due 2012-04-18].
<nvdbleek> update 9.3.3 http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#ui-repeat-processing, section about bind,....
RESOLUTION: When atomic form controls (e.g. input) bind to literals, they behave as readonly
<scribe> ACTION: Nick to implement in spec "When atomic form controls (e.g. input) bind to literals, they behave as readonly" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/04/11-forms-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1890 - Implement in spec "When atomic form controls (e.g. input) bind to literals, they behave as readonly" [on Nick Van Den Bleeken - due 2012-04-18].
RESOLUTION: When using bind to bind to a literal, MIPs attached to literal generate a binding exception
<scribe> ACTION: Nick to implement in spec "When using bind to bind to a literal, MIPs attach to literal generate a binding exception" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/04/11-forms-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1891 - Implement in spec "When using bind to bind to a literal, MIPs attach to literal generate a binding exception" [on Nick Van Den Bleeken - due 2012-04-18].
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/restruction/restriction/ Succeeded: s/boyer/Boyer/ Succeeded: i/John: In input element for example/Scribenick: John_Boyer Succeeded: s/useful for repeat/useful for repeat and itemset/ Succeeded: s/we should throw an error if a repeat/we should not throw an error if a repeat/ Found Scribe: John Found ScribeNick: John_Boyer Found Scribe: Steven Inferring ScribeNick: Steven Found ScribeNick: John_Boyer Found ScribeNick: John_Boyer Scribes: John, Steven ScribeNicks: John_Boyer, Steven Default Present: +44.782.483.aaaa, alain, pfennell, Steven, +1.323.425.aabb, nvdbleek, John_Boyer, +1.650.919.aacc, ebruchez Present: +44.782.483.aaaa alain pfennell Steven +1.323.425.aabb nvdbleek John_Boyer +1.650.919.aacc ebruchez Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2012Apr/0005 Found Date: 11 Apr 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/04/11-forms-minutes.html People with action items: add community course group link michael nick please s sperberg-mcqueen steven xforms WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]