Forms Working Group Teleconference -- 11 Feb 2015

<trackbot> Date: 11 February 2015

Section 10 (continued)

Steven: Last time we discussed section 10: http://www.w3.org/2015/01/21-forms-minutes.html
... we got as far as 10.4.12, in this email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2015Jan/0016.html
... so the next point would be "10.5.7

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

We need to decide about the editorial note."

scribe: Oh wait, we already dealt with that.

Erik: Yes, I have an action item to deal with it.

Steven: Sorry, made a mistake, last minutes were these :http://www.w3.org/2015/01/28-forms-minutes.html
... Oh, sorry, we finished section 10 then. My bad.
... So that means we can go straight on to:

Section 11 - Actions

Steven: From Alain - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2015Feb/0008.html

At 11.17, a global Javascript variable named "XForms" is introduced:

* why not mention it already at 10.8?

* it would be much more convenient for an engine such as XSLTForms to specify

methods instead of properties: ".getVar(name)" instead of ".var.name",

"getContext()" instead of ".context". If not, each and every possible variable

has to be stored in XForms.var before executing the script action, whether it

will be effectively used or not.

* is a script action allowed to modify an XForms variable?

* which mapping should be used for sequences? Javascript arrays?

Point 1: Put the XForms JS variable in section on the DOM interface, 10.8

Erik: I'm not sure if we are ready to specify a JS api.
... what we have is rather empoverished.
... if we want to add to it, it should be more consistent and comprehensive.

Steven: So this section makes life difficult for you

Alain: Yes.

Erik: This section is new, 10.8 is not.

Steven: I don't recall agreeing on these defnitions, but we should definitely reach some consensus.

Erik: This is probably Nick's work. We do want to provide context information to a piece of Javascript

Steven: Alain is suggesting we should use methods instead of properties. Any objection?

Erik: There is a global XForms object.
... I don't know if that's the right way.

Alain: We have extra parameters for allowing JS functions with XPath

Erik: So XPath functions in JS need more information
... we could say that we are not yet ready... and wait for experience reports
... or specify an API
... I am not confident about the latter
... needs experimentation

Steven: So you are suggesting that 11.17 should allow the script element, but no details of API

Erik: Yes.

Steven: There is the other direction too, using JS functions in XPath expressions. We don't define that either.

Alain: We do do that in XSLTForms
... when a function isn't available, we look to see if there is one with the same name in JS.

Steven: Any problems with passing the parameters?

Alain: Always strings

Steven: So do we agree to trim down this section?

Alain: Say that it is implementation dependent for the time being

<ebruchez> 7.9.5.1 Serialization as application/xml

<ebruchez> "waiting for further implementation experience and user feedback, to decide"

Erik: in section 7.9.5.1 we say we are waiting for feedback. We should that here

Steven: OK

<ebruchez> brb

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to rewrite a simpler version of 11.17, and ask for experience [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/02/11-forms-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2008 - Rewrite a simpler version of 11.17, and ask for experience [on Steven Pemberton - due 2015-02-18].

Alain: In section 3.3 there is a use of stuff from this section " foo(XForms.var.p);" that needs to be removed

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to change example in 3.3 not to use " foo(XForms.var.p);" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/02/11-forms-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2009 - Change example in 3.3 not to use " foo(xforms.var.p);" [on Steven Pemberton - due 2015-02-18].

Steven: Next is here - http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_2.0#The_setvalue_Element

"Element nodes: If element child nodes are present, then an xforms-action-error Event occurs. Otherwise, regardless of how many child nodes the element has, the result is that the string becomes the new content of the element. In accord with the data model of [XPath 1.0], the element will have either a single non-empty text node child, or no children string was empty."

Steven: I don't understand the last 6 words

Erik: Sounds like a mistake

Steven: So what should go there?

<ebruchez> or no children nodes if the string was empty

Steven: Ah! I see.

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to correct 11.2 "or no children string was empty." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/02/11-forms-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2010 - Correct 11.2 "or no children string was empty." [on Steven Pemberton - due 2015-02-18].

Steven: In section 11.3 we use "clone" without really defining it. Are you happy with that?
... why don't we just say "copying"?
... we only use this word in this section, nowere else.

Alain: It's a DOM term

<ebruchez> "deep copied"

<ebruchez> in 3.2.2, we use "copied"

Erik: We use 'deep copy' in The Copy Element 8.3.5

Not a huge problem.

Steven: It's not a different thing than what the Copy Element does, so it is odd that we use a different term here.

Erik: Not a big problem, no strong feelings.

Steven: If you try to insert into a read-only parent, we stop silently. Is that OK, that there is no event to warn you?

Alain: It would be nice for debugging if there were an event...

Erik: Not sure if events are the way to do this
... but I agree that there needs to be a way to know that it fails

Steven: I think it's unfriendly not to give the user some sort of warning why it hasn't been done. Let's think about it a bit more.

AOB

Steven: Call next week, section 11 continued, and section 12.

- DRAFT -

Forms Working Group Teleconference

11 Feb 2015

Attendees

Contents

Section 10 (continued)

Section 11 - Actions

AOB

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output