IRC log of forms on 2013-02-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:53:01 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #forms
15:53:01 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:53:03 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:53:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #forms
15:53:05 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be IA_XForms
15:53:05 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see IA_XForms()11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
15:53:06 [trackbot]
Meeting: Forms Working Group Teleconference
15:53:06 [trackbot]
Date: 06 February 2013
15:53:48 [Steven]
15:53:59 [Steven]
Steven has changed the topic to: Agenda
15:54:04 [Steven]
Chair: Steven
15:54:08 [Steven]
Regrets: Philip
15:59:35 [ebruchez]
ebruchez has joined #forms
16:02:11 [nvdbleek]
nvdbleek has joined #forms
16:03:47 [Zakim]
IA_XForms()11:00AM has now started
16:03:54 [Zakim]
16:04:11 [ebruchez]
zakim, code
16:04:11 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'code', ebruchez
16:04:21 [nvdbleek]
zakim, code?
16:04:21 [Zakim]
the conference code is 93676 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, nvdbleek
16:04:29 [unl]
unl has joined #forms
16:04:30 [Zakim]
16:04:36 [Steven]
zakim, I am ?
16:04:36 [Zakim]
+Steven; got it
16:05:07 [Zakim]
16:05:57 [Zakim]
16:08:32 [Steven]
Scribe: Steven
16:08:33 [Steven]
Topic: The XForms Dialog Module + relevance
16:08:33 [Steven]
16:09:04 [Steven]
Steven: THe last remark last week was from Uli "We need to talk about relevance"
16:09:11 [Steven]
16:09:38 [Steven]
Uli: About show and hide events
16:09:57 [unl]
16:10:28 [Steven]
Uli: Point 2, suggested behaviour
16:10:50 [Steven]
- close the dialog if it becomes non-relevant (we can't do much else anyway)
16:10:50 [Steven]
- don't re-open if it becomes relevant (idea: non-relevant controls lose
16:10:50 [Steven]
state information)
16:11:16 [Steven]
Uli: Is this consistent with other controls?
16:11:31 [Steven]
Nick: More or less
16:12:14 [Steven]
Uli: I'm not sure that our controls lose state when they go from relevance to non-relevance and back
16:12:26 [Steven]
... it may be implementation-dependent
16:12:55 [Steven]
... does it get recomputed?
16:13:13 [Steven]
Erik: I'm not sure we ever finished that discussion
16:13:43 [Steven]
... compare switch-case which has changed state, what happens then? This would be similar.
16:13:54 [Steven]
... maybe if the spec says, we can do the same.
16:14:32 [Steven]
... In any case it seems odd that it should pop back into life.
16:14:59 [Steven]
Nick: Agree
16:15:25 [Steven]
Uli: OK
16:15:56 [Steven]
Steven: So agreed.
16:16:12 [Steven]
Topic: The bind() function
16:16:12 [Steven]
16:16:23 [unl]
16:16:34 [Steven]
Uli: We had some wiki text. It's not hard to do
16:17:21 [Steven]
Nick: There are some problems.
16:17:33 [Steven]
... it implicitly creates dependencies
16:18:05 [Steven]
Uli: The dependency engine has to be aware of the bind function?
16:18:23 [Steven]
Nick: The text of the dependency engine says it only looks at arguments
16:18:29 [Steven]
... that would be hard to get right
16:19:05 [Steven]
... it would change the core spec, not only the functions spec
16:19:32 [Steven]
Erik: THere are many places where you could use bind()
16:19:37 [Steven]
16:19:47 [Steven]
... it has many uses
16:20:14 [Steven]
... if it is to hard to revise the dependency text, we can say it is undefined
16:21:18 [Steven]
Uli: The instance() function surely has the same sort of problems
16:21:50 [Steven]
Nick: Except it returns the root node, which doesn't change
16:22:40 [Steven]
Erik: and a structural change gives a rebuild
16:23:14 [Steven]
... but I agree about the comparison between build and instance
16:23:55 [Steven]
... and there are problems with allowing it on bond refs.
16:24:02 [Steven]
16:24:42 [Steven]
Steven: Does anyone implement this yet?
16:25:00 [Steven]
Erik: We do, but we ignore the dependency aspects
16:25:12 [Steven]
Steven: So it has no effect on the dependencies?
16:25:49 [Steven]
Nick: We use it, but you have to be careful using it, it effects the ordering of binds
16:25:59 [Steven]
16:26:49 [Steven]
Steven: SO the ordering of binds becomes important, and not interoperable?
16:26:59 [Steven]
Erik: We should ban it on bind@ref
16:27:05 [Steven]
16:27:34 [Steven]
Nick: Also dangerous for a recalculate, since ti won't be automatically recalculated.
16:27:39 [Steven]
16:27:56 [Steven]
Erik: right
16:28:02 [ebruchez]
<bind ref="foo" calculate="bind('other-bind')"/>
16:28:54 [Steven]
Uli: You could statically analyse xpath expressions
16:29:04 [Steven]
Erik: THe spec has never required that, that would be really new
16:29:10 [Steven]
16:29:27 [ebruchez]
<bind ref="bind(contact('other', id))">
16:29:32 [nvdbleek]
<bind ref="foo" calculate="bind(../foo)"/>
16:30:12 [Steven]
Nick: That is a counter example to static analysis
16:31:27 [Steven]
Uli: So disallow it on bind expressions
16:32:04 [Steven]
Nick: Use vars?
16:33:17 [Steven]
Erik: If we prohibit it, then implementations can't even try to fix it.
16:35:20 [ebruchez]
"If the function is used in a model binding expressionXF the XForms Processor should terminate processing after dispatching the event xforms-binding-exception to the model. If the function is used in a computed expressionXF the XForms Processor should terminate processing after dispatching the event xforms-compute-exception to the model."
16:35:24 [Steven]
Nick: We should watch out for adding new features to the last-call spec
16:35:47 [Steven]
... we need two interoperable implementations, and be comfortable with the definition
16:36:30 [ebruchez]
(the above is about the valid() function)
16:36:35 [Steven]
Erik: We could us similar text to that from valid(), see above
16:36:55 [Steven]
s/ us / use /
16:37:06 [Steven]
Erik: Note the "should" there
16:37:23 [Steven]
... sometimes the spec is too strict I find
16:40:19 [Steven]
Steven: value="bind('constant', xpath)"
16:40:47 [unl]
value="concat(bind('a'), bind('b'))"
16:40:59 [Steven]
Uli: You also want to use it deep in an expression
16:40:59 [ebruchez]
calculate="foo + bind(''bar)"
16:41:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.443.837.aaaa
16:41:57 [Steven]
zakim, + is Kurt
16:41:57 [Zakim]
+Kurt; got it
16:43:37 [Steven]
Steven: I think we need to work on this feature more before we add it to the spec. It is now too late for the LC spec
16:45:30 [Steven]
Uli: I don't think bind() is to hard to specify.
16:45:48 [Steven]
s/ to / too /
16:46:17 [Steven]
Steven: We have a time constraint.
16:46:36 [Steven]
Topic: The mediatype Element (for upload)
16:46:36 [Steven]
16:47:10 [unl]
16:48:08 [Steven]
Uli: These things are two different things; I propose we change the attribute name to "accept"
16:49:20 [Steven]
Nick: I made an error. I should not have deprecated the mediatype element.
16:49:47 [Steven]
Erik: We need to fix that mistake.
16:50:08 [Steven]
ACTION: Nick to fix the upload/mediatype deprecation error
16:50:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-1929 - Fix the upload/mediatype deprecation error [on Nick Van Den Bleeken - due 2013-02-13].
16:50:45 [Steven]
Uli: They should also have different names
16:50:56 [Steven]
... since they are different things.
16:53:01 [Steven]
Uli: It would be nice to reduce some markup bloat
16:53:29 [Steven]
Erik: I would like to use attributes instead of nested elements
16:54:08 [Steven]
... I'm not against moving to attributes.
16:54:21 [Steven]
Uli: There are more places where we could do that
16:54:33 [Steven]
... we should do it at all places where possible
16:54:55 [Steven]
Erik: I thought I sent out a proposal for this last year
16:55:05 [ebruchez]
16:56:15 [Steven]
Uli: I shall reread the spec for all places where we could do this.
16:56:38 [Steven]
ACTION Uli: propose all places where child elements can be replaced with AVT attributes
16:56:38 [trackbot]
Error finding 'Uli'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
16:57:04 [Steven]
ACTION Ulrich: propose all places where child elements can be replaced with AVT attributes
16:57:05 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-1930 - Propose all places where child elements can be replaced with AVT attributes [on Ulrich Nicolas Lissé - due 2013-02-13].
16:58:13 [Steven]
Uli: What about accept attibute on upload?
16:58:25 [Steven]
16:58:58 [Steven]
ACTION: Uli to propose text for @accept on upload
16:58:58 [trackbot]
Error finding 'Uli'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
16:59:21 [Steven]
tracknot, help
16:59:27 [Steven]
trackbot, help
16:59:27 [trackbot]
Please see <> for help.
17:00:02 [Steven]
ACTION: Ulrich to propose text for @accept on upload
17:00:03 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-1931 - Propose text for @accept on upload [on Ulrich Nicolas Lissé - due 2013-02-13].
17:00:30 [Zakim]
17:00:30 [Steven]
17:00:31 [Zakim]
17:00:31 [Zakim]
17:00:32 [Zakim]
17:00:43 [Steven]
zakim, who is here?
17:00:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Kurt
17:00:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see unl, nvdbleek, Zakim, RRSAgent, Steven, trackbot
17:00:48 [Steven]
zakim, drop kurt
17:00:48 [Zakim]
Kurt is being disconnected
17:00:50 [Zakim]
IA_XForms()11:00AM has ended
17:00:50 [Zakim]
Attendees were nvdbleek, Steven, ebruchez, unl, +1.443.837.aaaa, Kurt
17:00:55 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:00:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Steven
17:46:04 [ebruchez]
ebruchez has joined #forms
19:14:13 [nvdbleek]
nvdbleek has joined #forms
19:17:48 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #forms
19:57:32 [nvdbleek]
nvdbleek has joined #forms
21:08:12 [windauer]
windauer has joined #forms