IRC log of Forms on 2007-05-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:48:22 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #Forms
14:48:22 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/05/16-Forms-irc
14:50:42 [Schnitz]: Nick, I think you're channel op
14:50:58 [Schnitz]: Nick, could u set the topic to the agenda link?
14:51:00 [Schnitz]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0051.html
14:52:18 [Nick]: Nick has changed the topic to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0051.html
14:54:25 [Schnitz]: thanks
14:54:34 [jturner]: jturner has joined #forms
14:54:41 [Schnitz]: hi joern
14:54:46 [Schnitz]: zakim, code
14:54:46 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'code', Schnitz
14:54:47 [jturner]: Hi Schnitz
14:55:15 [Charlie]: Charlie has joined #forms
14:55:52 [Schnitz]: zakim, code?
14:55:52 [Zakim]: the conference code is 36767 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Schnitz
14:55:54 [Zakim]: HTML_Forms()11:00AM has now started
14:55:59 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
14:56:07 [Charlie]: zakim, [IBM is Charlie
14:56:07 [Zakim]: +Charlie; got it
14:56:21 [Nick]: Nick has joined #Forms
14:57:10 [Zakim]: + +49.176.251.2.aaaa
14:57:35 [Schnitz]: zakim, +49 is me
14:57:35 [Zakim]: +Schnitz; got it
14:57:43 [Zakim]: +Nick_van_den_Bleeken
14:58:00 [Rafael]: Rafael has joined #forms
14:58:04 [Roger]: Roger has joined #forms
14:58:17 [Roger]: zakim, code?
14:58:17 [Zakim]: the conference code is 36767 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Roger
14:59:13 [Zakim]: +??P5
14:59:43 [jturner]: zakim, P5 is me
14:59:43 [Zakim]: sorry, jturner, I do not recognize a party named 'P5'
14:59:49 [Schnitz]: zakim, ??p5 is jturner
14:59:49 [Zakim]: +jturner; got it
14:59:50 [Nick]: zakim +??P5 is jtuner
15:00:01 [Zakim]: +??P8
15:00:17 [Roger]: zakim, ??p8 is Roger
15:00:17 [Zakim]: +Roger; got it
15:00:25 [jturner]: zakim, mute me
15:00:25 [Zakim]: jturner should now be muted
15:00:40 [Roger]: zakim, Roger has Rafael
15:00:40 [Zakim]: +Rafael; got it
15:01:07 [Zakim]: +Susan_Borgrink
15:01:12 [John_Boyer]: John_Boyer has joined #forms
15:01:47 [ebruchez]: ebruchez has joined #forms
15:02:00 [Zakim]: +??P27
15:02:29 [klotz]: klotz has joined #forms
15:02:30 [ebruchez]: zakim, ebruchez is ??P27
15:02:30 [Zakim]: sorry, ebruchez, I do not recognize a party named 'ebruchez'
15:02:42 [ebruchez]: zakim, ??P27 is ebruchez
15:02:42 [Zakim]: +ebruchez; got it
15:02:58 [SusanB]: SusanB has joined #forms
15:03:59 [Zakim]: +Leigh_Klotz
15:05:15 [Schnitz]: zakim, who is making noise?
15:05:27 [Nick]: no one is makeing noise
15:05:34 [Zakim]: Schnitz, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Charlie (3%), Schnitz (55%)
15:05:42 [Schnitz]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0051.html
15:06:05 [John_Boyer]: where is rrsagent?
15:06:12 [John_Boyer]: oh oops i see it
15:06:18 [John_Boyer]: rrsagent, make log public
15:06:27 [John_Boyer]: zakim, this will be forms
15:06:42 [Zakim]: ok, John_Boyer, I see HTML_Forms()11:00AM already started
15:08:45 [unl]: unl has joined #forms
15:10:44 [Zakim]: +unl
15:14:06 [Schnitz]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007May/0007.html
15:16:15 [Nick]: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2005/09/f2f/2005Sept08#topic17
15:16:29 [klotz]: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2005/09/f2f/2005Sept08
15:18:15 [unl]: zakim, mute me
15:18:15 [Zakim]: unl should now be muted
15:18:32 [John_Boyer]: are you guys discussing iterate right now?
15:18:46 [klotz]: yes, john. sorry. i will give you a link.
15:19:01 [John_Boyer]: It does sound like a feature request that should have gone into future features but didn't
15:19:26 [klotz]: http://xformstest.org/klotz/20070516.txt
15:19:49 [Schnitz]: John, do u think we should include it today for 1.1?
15:19:55 [John_Boyer]: No.
15:20:15 [Schnitz]: John, so future stuff?
15:20:24 [John_Boyer]: Yes
15:20:29 [John_Boyer]: It creates a nodeset that
15:20:38 [John_Boyer]: has to persist
15:20:46 [John_Boyer]: during run of actions
15:20:49 [John_Boyer]: that can include delete
15:20:53 [John_Boyer]: this is where the problem comes in
15:21:00 [John_Boyer]: and nobody wanted to write the spec for it
15:21:05 [John_Boyer]: so it got dumped into 1.2
15:21:09 [Schnitz]: ok
15:21:14 [Schnitz]: moving on then...
15:21:16 [John_Boyer]: we just didn't put it in future features
15:21:38 [Schnitz]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007May/0003.html
15:21:40 [klotz]: John_Boyer reload
15:22:09 [Schnitz]: John, do you want to respond to that email then?
15:22:16 [John_Boyer]: ok
15:22:21 [John_Boyer]: yes
15:22:30 [Schnitz]: thanks
15:23:10 [Schnitz]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007May/0003.html
15:26:18 [Schnitz]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Feb/0084.html
15:26:25 [klotz]: John_Boyer reload
15:29:21 [Schnitz]: ebruchez
15:29:38 [Schnitz]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Feb/0084.html
15:30:07 [klotz]: John_Boyer reload
15:30:16 [ebruchez]: I will type then
15:30:24 [ebruchez]: just aking what you think the next step should be
15:30:36 [ebruchez]: based on that February discussion
15:30:40 [ebruchez]: ok
15:30:44 [ebruchez]: sounds good
15:30:48 [ebruchez]: can you add the action item?
15:30:52 [Schnitz]: sure
15:30:56 [klotz]: ACTION: Leigh Klotz to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007May/0003.html with questions about how generic the use case is, request for more, point out that it requires an extension.
15:31:01 [klotz]: ACTION: Erik to read and understand http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Feb/0084.html , contact Aaron Reed and Mark Birbeck, and report back to group.
15:31:20 [Schnitz]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Apr/0042.html
15:32:11 [ebruchez]: this one is just a syntactic suggestion
15:32:31 [ebruchez]: it's probably something to suggest to whomever is in charge of XML Events
15:32:46 [Nick]: shouldn't we address this to mark
15:33:09 [Nick]: isn't it shane and markb
15:33:30 [ebruchez]: I can send the suggestion to whomever is in charge
15:33:46 [John_Boyer]: lol, isn't that markb?
15:34:24 [ebruchez]: so the question would be whether the WG thinks we should ask for this to be in XML EVents
15:35:13 [John_Boyer]: Well, I have just learned that from *some* countries, I can only use my calling card to call Canada, not the US. India is one of those countries. I just knew something like this would come up, hence the request for Sebastian to chair.
15:36:21 [klotz]: John_Boyer reload
15:36:53 [ebruchez]: the goal was to propose a simple syntax
15:36:56 [ebruchez]: to achieve that
15:37:07 [ebruchez]: yes it is possible now, but heavier to write
15:37:23 [ebruchez]: and the idea of a space-separate list is already common:
15:37:27 [ebruchez]: list of schemas
15:37:31 [ebruchez]: list of classes,
15:37:54 [ebruchez]: sounds good
15:38:17 [Schnitz]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0057.html
15:38:36 [Schnitz]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0051.html
15:38:36 [klotz]: ACTION: Erik Bruchez to suggest requirement to share handlers via lighterweight syntax than ev:listener to Shane McCarron and Mark Birbeck.
15:39:13 [Nick]: I find <listener event="event-type-1" handler="#handler"/> <listener event="event-type-2" handler="#handler"/> is quite simple
15:40:39 [klotz]: ACTION: Leigh Klotz to read and report back on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0057.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0051.html
15:40:53 [Schnitz]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2006JulSep/0161.html
15:41:24 [Nick]: no he sent regrets
15:43:17 [Nick]: he means the e-mails sent to the editors list
15:43:25 [Schnitz]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2006Dec/0062.html
15:43:25 [Nick]: I guess
15:46:20 [John_Boyer]: I believe the email typed above, or some variation of it, became a last call comment and could be dealt with there.
15:46:57 [ebruchez]: basically, MK suggests a solution for adding XPath functions in XForms that minimizes clashes in the future
15:48:24 [John_Boyer]: yes, I do think the fact that we don't at least have the choice of a ns qualified version of our functions is problematic, and fixing that would not be too hard, and I *think* it is a last call issue
15:48:41 [ebruchez]: unfortunately I won't be at the f2f
15:48:47 [ebruchez]: but I could call in for that particular discussion
15:48:47 [Schnitz]: John, we think we should discuss this at the F2F
15:48:57 [ebruchez]: yup
15:49:14 [John_Boyer]: Yes, last call issues will be discussed there as well, so it seems we would get to it there either way
15:49:32 [Schnitz]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2007JanMar/0053.html
15:50:21 [klotz]: RESOLUTION: We discuss http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2006Dec/0062.html at the F2F and encourge Erik Bruchez to call in.
15:50:42 [ebruchez]: the term "acceptable" is just not working here in the first place I think
15:51:48 [ebruchez]: I have also submitted more comments regarding bindings in another email
15:52:15 [Schnitz]: Schnitz has joined #forms
15:52:19 [ebruchez]: I think that may entail a rework of the whole area
15:52:26 [John_Boyer]: The section starts "Dynamic Dependencies" then says some are not acceptable, then it goes on to say that in particular there are problems with model binding expressions
15:52:27 [ebruchez]: I mean the whole section about bindings
15:52:40 [ebruchez]: trying to find the link
15:53:14 [ebruchez]: well, following recent discussions on bindings with John in public-forms, I think we need to do some work there
15:53:16 [John_Boyer]: It's certainly true that 7.4 eval context needed a full rewrite, so some surgery on 7.5 is conceivalbe
15:53:25 [Schnitz]: ebruchez, what do u suggest, striking acceptable and/or reworking the sections?
15:54:07 [ebruchez]: the thing is, any expression that returns a node-set is acceptable
15:54:14 [Schnitz]: zakim, who is here?
15:54:14 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Leigh_Klotz, unl (muted), Charlie, Schnitz, Nick_van_den_Bleeken (muted), jturner (muted), Roger, Susan_Borgrink, ebruchez
15:54:16 [Zakim]: On IRC I see Schnitz, unl, SusanB, klotz, ebruchez, John_Boyer, Roger, Rafael, Nick, Charlie, jturner, RRSAgent, Zakim
15:54:18 [Zakim]: Roger has Rafael
15:54:24 [ebruchez]: it's just some are dynamic bindings, some are not
15:54:25 [John_Boyer]: In the particular case of the word 'acceptable' it didn't grab me as being difficult to understand, so I haven't gone after a rewrite
15:54:35 [John_Boyer]: By acceptable we mean that they won't work correctly
15:54:44 [ebruchez]: but I don't understand it ;-)
15:54:53 [ebruchez]: not by the standard meaning of "acceptable"
15:55:06 [John_Boyer]: It's unacceptable that things don't work as you would expect
15:55:17 [ebruchez]: then dynamic bindings are prohibited?
15:55:20 [John_Boyer]: In a perfect union of xpath and xforms, ignoring algorithmic complexities
15:55:36 [ebruchez]: if they are allowed, then they are acceptable
15:55:53 [ebruchez]: either way we need a rewrite and to use a different term
15:55:54 [John_Boyer]: they would work properly, but they don't.
15:56:07 [John_Boyer]: we could use a different word than 'acceptable' as long as someone proposes one
15:56:10 [klotz]: ok, moving on to next agenda item.
15:56:14 [Schnitz]: moving on to
15:56:16 [Schnitz]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2006Feb/0001
15:56:19 [John_Boyer]: that issue alone didn't inspire me to go off and rewrite the section though
15:56:22 [ebruchez]: more than the word, we need to actaully explain what we mean
15:56:58 [ebruchez]: it is an issue I think if even XForms experts don't understand how UI bindings work ;-)
15:57:36 [unl]: zakim unmute me
15:57:44 [unl]: zakim, unmute me
15:57:44 [Zakim]: unl should no longer be muted
15:58:03 [John_Boyer]: Ah yes, the inability to create dependencies problem...
15:58:25 [ebruchez]: we take the first one too
15:58:29 [jturner]: think so too
15:58:50 [Nick]: didn't we talk about it at Palo Alto?
15:58:51 [John_Boyer]: we do too.
15:58:53 [John_Boyer]: yes we did
15:59:00 [Nick]: can't find the minutes
15:59:06 [John_Boyer]: it was acrimonious as I recall
15:59:17 [Nick]: does anybody have a link to the minutes of palo alto?
15:59:33 [Schnitz]: John, all take the first one, I think we can (re-)agree on this
15:59:39 [Nick]: s/have a link/has a link/
15:59:44 [Schnitz]: all means all implementations on the call today
15:59:48 [John_Boyer]: that's because you don't have Mark and Raman there
15:59:52 [Schnitz]: David is asking:
15:59:58 [Schnitz]: I
15:59:58 [Schnitz]: believe the specification should state that for closed selections the
15:59:58 [Schnitz]: first matching item must be the one selected
16:00:00 [ebruchez]: here is the link to my message to www-forms-editor regarding section 7
16:00:01 [ebruchez]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007May/0006.html
16:00:16 [John_Boyer]: They argued strongly that a "select1" should select multiple items if they match the value
16:00:23 [John_Boyer]: because you're selecting one value
16:00:33 [John_Boyer]: I thought it should select1 item
16:00:34 [Nick]: I want to read the minutes first
16:00:49 [John_Boyer]: but there are just enough wrong words in the spec that it can be read either way
16:01:03 [ebruchez]: ah, visually select multiple
16:01:12 [Roger]: thx & bye
16:01:14 [Nick]: bye
16:01:16 [ebruchez]: bye
16:01:18 [Zakim]: -Leigh_Klotz
16:01:20 [Zakim]: -Nick_van_den_Bleeken
16:01:21 [Zakim]: -unl
16:01:22 [Zakim]: -Roger
16:01:23 [Zakim]: -Susan_Borgrink
16:01:25 [Zakim]: -ebruchez
16:01:27 [jturner]: bye
16:01:27 [Zakim]: -Charlie
16:01:32 [Zakim]: -Schnitz
16:01:34 [Zakim]: -jturner
16:01:35 [Zakim]: HTML_Forms()11:00AM has ended
16:01:37 [Zakim]: Attendees were [IBM], Charlie, +49.176.251.2.aaaa, Schnitz, Nick_van_den_Bleeken, jturner, Rafael, Susan_Borgrink, ebruchez, Leigh_Klotz, unl
16:01:44 [John_Boyer]: rrsagent, make minutes
16:01:44 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/16-Forms-minutes.html John_Boyer
16:01:55 [John_Boyer]: rrsagent, bye
16:01:55 [RRSAgent]: I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/16-Forms-actions.rdf :
16:01:55 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Leigh Klotz to respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007May/0003.html with questions about how generic the use case is, request for more, point out that it requires an extension. [1]
16:01:55 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/16-Forms-irc#T15-30-56
16:01:55 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Erik to read and understand http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Feb/0084.html , contact Aaron Reed and Mark Birbeck, and report back to group. [2]
16:01:55 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/16-Forms-irc#T15-31-01
16:01:55 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Erik Bruchez to suggest requirement to share handlers via lighterweight syntax than ev:listener to Shane McCarron and Mark Birbeck. [3]
16:01:55 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/16-Forms-irc#T15-38-36-1
16:01:55 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Leigh Klotz to read and report back on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0057.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0051.html [4]
16:01:55 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/16-Forms-irc#T15-40-39