14:59:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #forms
14:59:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/26-forms-irc
14:59:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:59:53 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #forms
14:59:55 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be IA_XForms
14:59:55 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see IA_XForms()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
14:59:56 <trackbot> Meeting: Forms Working Group Teleconference
14:59:56 <trackbot> Date: 26 June 2013
15:00:06 <nvdbleek> CHAIR: Nick
15:00:42 <nvdbleek> zakim, code?
15:00:42 <Zakim> the conference code is 93676 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), nvdbleek
15:01:25 <Zakim> IA_XForms()11:00AM has now started
15:01:32 <Zakim> +nvdbleek
15:02:10 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek has changed the topic to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2013Jun/0018.html
15:02:14 <nvdbleek> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2013Jun/0018.html
15:02:14 <Zakim> +pfennell
15:02:26 <Zakim> +ebruchez
15:02:39 <pfennell> pfennell has joined #forms
15:03:11 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:03:12 <nvdbleek> Scribe: Nick
15:03:26 <alain> zakim, I am [IPcaller]
15:03:26 <Zakim> ok, alain, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
15:03:36 <nvdbleek> Regrets: Steven, Uli
15:03:54 <nvdbleek> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2013Jun/0018.html
15:04:13 <nvdbleek> Topic: Dialog module
15:04:14 <nvdbleek> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2013Jun/0015.html
15:04:34 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek: Had anybody time to review it already?
15:04:50 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: I send in some comments
15:05:21 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: 1. The reference to Core Form Controls was in the source but didn't
15:05:22 <nvdbleek> show. I fixed it.
15:06:08 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: 2. "the IDREF may not uniquely identify the desired dialog if the
15:06:08 <nvdbleek> dialog element bearing the matching ID resides in a repeating
15:06:09 <nvdbleek> construct such as element repeat" however  we say the element is a
15:06:10 <nvdbleek> "top level container form control".
15:07:05 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: We talk about the ID resolution, but it needs to be a top level element
15:07:23 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: So we shouldn't talk about ID resolution
15:08:52 <nvdbleek> ACTION nvdbleek Remove note about ID resolution in show/hide elements because it is not needed the dialog element is a top level element
15:08:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1952 - Remove note about ID resolution in show/hide elements because it is not needed the dialog element is a top level element [on Nick Van Den Bleeken - due 2013-07-03].
15:09:11 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: 3. Since `xf:dialog` is new, do we want to support `xf:show/xf:dialog`, since we have AVTs?
15:10:17 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: We are deprecating child elements, so we shouldn't add xf:dialog child elements for show/hide elements
15:10:50 <nvdbleek> ACTION nvdbleek remove dialog child element for show/hide element
15:10:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1953 - Remove dialog child element for show/hide element [on Nick Van Den Bleeken - due 2013-07-03].
15:11:09 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: 4. It would be convenient if `xf:dialog/@dialog` was indeed optional, but would resolve, when possible, to the enclosing dialog.
15:11:52 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: the attribute is optional because it also supported the dialog child element
15:12:34 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: We could make the dialog attribute optional on the hide to hide the parent dialog element
15:13:36 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek: I'm note sure because it makes no sense on the show action
15:14:30 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: We don't this for recalculate either
15:14:45 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: (to specify the model, the model is mandatory)
15:15:08 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek: ebruchez would you like to be dialog optional on hide
15:15:45 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: It would be convenient, but it is not symmetrical
15:15:57 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: Let's wait a bit for this one
15:16:03 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: I know it is a use case
15:16:42 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: I'm rather in favour of making dialog attribute optional on hide
15:17:08 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: It is similar to the toggle action
15:18:40 <ebruchez> but the toggle action is more like xf:show, so that's not helping
15:18:50 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek: I'm not sure, but on the other hand who will omit the dialog attribute on show
15:19:12 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: 5. Minor edits. [1] I wanted to do more, but some of the funny wording is used by group and switch too. I think readers are familar with the notion of a dialog, so I simplified a bit.
15:20:28 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: It is weird, but the wording is used other group  controls too
15:21:29 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: 6. I had suggested `xforms-dialog-shown` and `xforms-dialog-hidden` as notification event names [3]. Right now, the text has `xforms-dialog-show` and `xforms-dialog-hide` as events dispatched by the action. One issue is: what happens with the dialog's "hide" button when present? There has to be a way to know that the dialog was hidden. Should we say that the button dispatches `xforms-dialog-show`? And/or should we have both show/hide and shown/[CUT]
15:21:29 <nvdbleek> one being the event for the action, the other one the event dispatched to the dialog when it is effectively opening/closing?
15:21:41 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: There are two type of events:
15:22:01 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: 1) dispatched by the action to open and close dialogs by the action
15:23:03 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: 2) Notification events (to know when a dialog is opened or about to be closed)
15:23:26 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: With the notification events you can for example copy some data
15:24:38 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: I suggested notification elements
15:25:31 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: The current events are cancellable so you can't listen for the events to be sure if the dialog is opened/closed
15:25:52 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek: I think we need the notification events
15:26:33 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: In our implementation the events aren't cancellable
15:27:42 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek: Doesn't it makes sense to be able to cancel the hide event (e.g.: prevent the dialog from disappearing till a certain condition is met)
15:29:07 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: It would be weird if you have a close button on your dialog and hitting it won't close the dialog
15:29:29 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: For switch it are notification events
15:30:25 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: I'm not convinced we need the actions to perform the action
15:30:43 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: The most versatile approach is to have 4 events
15:31:34 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek: Then xforms-dialog-hide will dispatch xforms-dialog-hiden in its default action
15:31:53 <nvdbleek> … xforms-dialog-show will dispatch xforms-dialog-shown in its default action
15:32:10 <ebruchez> s/hiden/hidden
15:32:33 <nvdbleek> .. and xforms-dialog-hidden and xforms-dialog-shown are notification events (not cancellable)
15:34:03 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: You want the xforms-dialog-hidden event to be called just before it is hidden, otherwise the content won't be relevant
15:35:23 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: I will send a message to the group about this
15:36:15 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: 7. We had a question of what to do when the dialog becomes non-relevant, but I think that goes away as right now we say the dialog is only a top-level element.
15:37:34 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek: I'm quite sure there is no binding, we removed this quite some time ago
15:38:39 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: that's good for the dialog then
15:38:56 <nvdbleek> Topic: ACTION-1950 - Make @accept HTML compatible
15:38:57 <nvdbleek> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2013Jun/0017.html
15:39:27 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek: I've reviewed the change, and I think it is OK
15:40:16 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: I pointed to the W3C version of HTML5 for the explanation of how to handle the accept attribute
15:40:42 <nvdbleek> alain: It's ok for me
15:40:49 <nvdbleek> Topic: Actions, and timeline
15:40:50 <nvdbleek> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2013Jun/0010.html
15:41:25 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek: We discussed this last time
15:41:36 <nvdbleek> ebruchez: I have a few action items todo
15:43:04 <Zakim> -nvdbleek
15:43:05 <Zakim> -pfennell
15:43:06 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
15:43:10 <Zakim> -ebruchez
15:43:12 <Zakim> IA_XForms()11:00AM has ended
15:43:12 <Zakim> Attendees were nvdbleek, pfennell, ebruchez, [IPcaller]
15:43:28 <alain> alain has left #forms
17:12:25 <ebruchez> ebruchez has joined #forms
17:22:34 <Zakim> Zakim has left #forms
19:51:02 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek has joined #forms