W3C

- DRAFT -

XForms Users Community Group Teleconference

01 Mar 2017

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Alain, Erik, Philip, Steven
Regrets
Chair
Steven
Scribe
Steven

Contents


Summertime

[USA: 12 March; Europe: 26 March; so for two weeks call is 1 hour earlier

in Europe]

XML London

http://xmllondon.com/

Steven: CFP, deadline is the end of this month

References and dependencies/Dynamic dependencies

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Feb/0023.html

Steven: Any feedback, or are you happy?

Philip: Still to do.

Steven: It's quite short, by merging sections it has compressed quite a lot.

MIPS as part of dependency graph

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Mar/0000.html

Steven: Isn't this already covered?

Erik: I think we say something about the use of these cross-MIP functions
... let me see if I can find it.

<ebruchez> https://www.w3.org/community/xformsusers/wiki/XPath_Expressions_Module#The_valid.28.29_Function

Erik: I think the second example in my mail wouldn't work at present
... but it would if recalculate and validate were combined

Steven: I see.
... To what extent is the way we specify the processing in these distinct steps essential?
... As I mentioned last week, there are ways of combining rebuild and recalculate
... and you are suggesting ways to combine recalculate and revalidate

Erik: We are a bit too prescriptive in the specification
... though the cross-MIP functions make it harder

Steven: I moved a line about being able to optimise as long as the result is the same (a bit redundant really) from refresh to the top of the model processing:

"Although some processes in this specification are described as if all expressions in a model or the user interface are re-evaluated every time there is a change, implementations are of course at liberty to optimize this, as long as the result is the same."

https://www.w3.org/community/xformsusers/wiki/XForms_2.0#Dependencies

Steven: So my question is, to what extent is it essential that we are prescriptive about the RRRR steps.

Erik: Is there anything that prevents us from doing it in a different way?
... the functions could create a case where you get a different result depending on whether you do them as four steps rather than less.
... I can see why it was written how it was.

Steven: What I want to avoid is that we prevent an implementation doing the best thing, by using wording in the spec that requires them to do something else.
... there's no reason why a really good dependency algorithm couldn't do RRRR in one go.

Erik: Refresh may need to be separate.

Steven: So what do we do with the RRR actions? What do we specify that they do in the case an implementation with a monolithic dependency algorithm?

Erik: We say that the three are the same.

Steven: So we say that <revalidate/> does *at least* a revalidation? That sounds good.

Serialization as multipart/related

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Feb/0022.html

Steven: I haven't worked on this this week.
... so let's keep it on the agenda.

Output to the user

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Feb/0026.html

Steven: I'm not objecting to <dialog/> per se, just that it isn't very well integrated into the whole

<ebruchez> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Mar/0001.html

Steven: We add a lot of functionality in dialog that is special just for that element, and I would prefer to see a more integrated whole.

Erik: Let's think a little bit more about it.

Steven: Very good.

AOB

[None]

[Adjourn]

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to change definition of RRR actions to say that they do *at least* R [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/01-forms-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2112 - Change definition of rrr actions to say that they do *at least* r [on Steven Pemberton - due 2017-03-08].

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Steven to change definition of RRR actions to say that they do *at least* R [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/03/01-forms-minutes.html#action01]
 

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/03/01 15:24:39 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/ee//
Succeeded: s/pre/per/
Succeeded: s/a buit/a bit/
Succeeded: s/comperssed/compressed/
Succeeded: s/Steeven: I s/Steven: I see/
Present: Alain Erik Philip Steven
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Steven
Inferring Scribes: Steven
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Mar/0002
Found Date: 01 Mar 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/03/01-forms-minutes.html
People with action items: steven

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]