Forms Working Group Teleconference -- 21 Jan 2015

<trackbot> Date: 21 January 2015

Section 10

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_2.0#Processing_Model

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2015Jan/0013.html

Erik: "1. Events dispatched to the `group` or `switch` element should

probably also be dispatched to `dialog element. Search for

"group|switch", "<group>, <repeat>", and "group or switch".

Erik: For example, erm, the MIP events, but I'm not sure about those, but the focus events.
... dialog is also a container

Steven: Can I give you an action item?

Erik: Sure.

<scribe> ACTION: Erik to analyse which events should also go to dialog [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/01/21-forms-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1993 - Analyse which events should also go to dialog [on Erik Bruchez - due 2015-01-28].

Erik: "2. We dispatch xforms-link-exception if schemas cannot be loaded. I

would like to make sure we are ok with dispatching a fatal event.

Erik: There are very few fatal events now. link-exception is one of them.
... Not sure if it is necessary for a fail on schemas

Steven: The form will still work, just with less validation

Erik: There is very little you can do on the other hand if the link fails, since it happens so early.
... there is little you can do to recover
... maybe disable the default processing.

Steven: Catch it and cancel the failure?

Erik: Exactly
... there are even examples of that.
... in the spec.

Steven: So this should be an error event instead?

Erik: Maybe we should make all exception events error events

Steven: For link-exception on src on an instance, you could imagine a use-case for cancelling it.

Erik: You could do that with a submission already.

Steven: Oh yes.

Erik: Though instance @src should be more like a submission, so you could still argue for cancelling link-exception
... I think link-error would be better
... in the past there was little we could do in the case of the exceptions.

Steven: You're suggesting we make all exceptions error?

Erik: Certainly for link-exception; there are binding, compute, version exceptions as well
... Maybe version-exception should still be an exception

Steven: Who cares? Even if there's nothing that can be done, we can still say it is cancellable; no one will do it, but they wouldn't with an exception either.
... Shall we just make all exceptions errors?

Erik: Sure.

Alain: I'm happy with that.

<scribe> ACTION: Erik to make all exceptions into errors [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/01/21-forms-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1994 - Make all exceptions into errors [on Erik Bruchez - due 2015-01-28].

Erik: "3. An "XForms Full processor" still optionally supports the group,

switch and repeat modules. Is this still current? Also, the dialog

module is not mentioned under "12.4.2 XForms Full", and there is a

reference to XForms Full under "10.5.6 The xforms-binding-exception

Event".

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_2.0#XForms_Full

<ebruchez> "for an XForms Full Processor, if encountering a group, switch, or repeat element when the associated module is not supported"

Steven: Let's postpone this to when we discuss section 12 on conformance.
... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2015Jan/0016.html

"10.3.4,

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_2.0#The_xforms-refresh_Event

step 2, the wording seems odd. I propose we move the first sentence to the

end, maybe in brackets.

Erik: I'm not sure what step 2 does here.

Steven: It should even be there?

Erik: Right, it's not part of refresh

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to remove steps 2 and 3 from http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_2.0#The_xforms-refresh_Event, and put them elsewhere [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/01/21-forms-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1995 - Remove steps 2 and 3 from http://www.w3.org/markup/forms/wiki/xforms_2.0#the_xforms-refresh_event, and put them elsewhere [on Steven Pemberton - due 2015-01-28].

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to remove steps 2 and 3 from 10.3.4, and put them elsewhere [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/01/21-forms-minutes.html#action05]

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to remove steps 2 and 3 from 10.3.4 and put them elsewhere [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/01/21-forms-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1996 - Remove steps 2 and 3 from http://www.w3.org/markup/forms/wiki/xforms_2.0#the_xforms-refresh_event, and put them elsewhere [on Steven Pemberton - due 2015-01-28].

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1997 - Remove steps 2 and 3 from 10.3.4, and put them elsewhere [on Steven Pemberton - due 2015-01-28].

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1998 - Remove steps 2 and 3 from 10.3.4 and put them elsewhere [on Steven Pemberton - due 2015-01-28].

Steven: "10.3.6

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_2.0#The_xforms-next_and_xforms-previous_Events

The last section on Navigation. Is this informative? Should it be there.

Should it be a note?

Erik: I agree. HTML already has a definition

Steven: We could delete everything from "The following describes a possible technique"

Erik: We do define @navindex

Steven: Otherwise we turn that section into an informative Note?

Erik: It's a lot of text for a suggestion...

Steven: Let's just delete it.

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to delete Navigation example section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/01/21-forms-minutes.html#action07]

Erik: What about @navindex?

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1999 - Delete navigation example section [on Steven Pemberton - due 2015-01-28].

Erik: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_2.0#Common_attribute_and_content_sets
... I hadn't realise navindex and accesskey are MUSTs

Steven: That section is already wrong, because it says that the default navigation order is specified in section 10...

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to investigate navindex and accesskey in http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_2.0#Common_attribute_and_content_sets [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/01/21-forms-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2000 - Investigate navindex and accesskey in http://www.w3.org/markup/forms/wiki/xforms_2.0#common_attribute_and_content_sets [on Steven Pemberton - due 2015-01-28].

Steven: 10.4.12

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_2.0#The_DOMActivate_Event

Is this really only a notification event?

Steven: So what causes the action that DOMActivate is announcing?
... If I write an action that sends a DOMActivate to a submit button, will the button get activated?

Erik: Only if you have a handler.
... http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_2.0#The_submit_Element

"Implementation Requirements: The default action for event DOMActivate is to dispatch event xforms-submit "

Steven: Oh! That's wrong!

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to research whether DOMActivate should have a default action... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/01/21-forms-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2001 - Research whether domactivate should have a default action... [on Steven Pemberton - due 2015-01-28].

Next week

Steven: Continue section 10, and start on section 11.

trackbot, help?

<trackbot> Please see <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

- DRAFT -

Forms Working Group Teleconference

21 Jan 2015

Attendees

Contents

Section 10

Next week

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output