SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 16 May 2007

<Schnitz> Nick, I think you're channel op

<Schnitz> Nick, could u set the topic to the agenda link?

<Schnitz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0051.html

<Schnitz> thanks

<Schnitz> hi joern

<jturner> Hi Schnitz

<Nick> zakim +??P5 is jtuner

<Nick> no one is makeing noise

<Schnitz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0051.html

<John_Boyer> where is rrsagent?

<John_Boyer> oh oops i see it

<Schnitz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007May/0007.html

<Nick> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2005/09/f2f/2005Sept08#topic17

<klotz> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2005/09/f2f/2005Sept08

<John_Boyer> are you guys discussing iterate right now?

<klotz> yes, john. sorry. i will give you a link.

<John_Boyer> It does sound like a feature request that should have gone into future features but didn't

<klotz> http://xformstest.org/klotz/20070516.txt

<Schnitz> John, do u think we should include it today for 1.1?

<John_Boyer> No.

<Schnitz> John, so future stuff?

<John_Boyer> Yes

<John_Boyer> It creates a nodeset that

<John_Boyer> has to persist

<John_Boyer> during run of actions

<John_Boyer> that can include delete

<John_Boyer> this is where the problem comes in

<John_Boyer> and nobody wanted to write the spec for it

<John_Boyer> so it got dumped into 1.2

<Schnitz> ok

<Schnitz> moving on then...

<John_Boyer> we just didn't put it in future features

<Schnitz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007May/0003.html

<klotz> John_Boyer reload

<Schnitz> John, do you want to respond to that email then?

<John_Boyer> ok

<John_Boyer> yes

<Schnitz> thanks

<Schnitz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007May/0003.html

<Schnitz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Feb/0084.html

<klotz> John_Boyer reload

<Schnitz> ebruchez

<Schnitz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Feb/0084.html

<klotz> John_Boyer reload

I will type then

just aking what you think the next step should be

based on that February discussion

sounds good

can you add the action item?

<Schnitz> sure

<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. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/16-Forms-minutes.html#action01]

<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. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/16-Forms-minutes.html#action02]

<Schnitz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Apr/0042.html

this one is just a syntactic suggestion

it's probably something to suggest to whomever is in charge of XML Events

<Nick> shouldn't we address this to mark

<Nick> isn't it shane and markb

I can send the suggestion to whomever is in charge

<John_Boyer> lol, isn't that markb?

so the question would be whether the WG thinks we should ask for this to be in XML EVents

<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.

<klotz> John_Boyer reload

the goal was to propose a simple syntax

to achieve that

yes it is possible now, but heavier to write

and the idea of a space-separate list is already common:

list of schemas

list of classes,

sounds good

<Schnitz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0057.html

<Schnitz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0051.html

<klotz> ACTION: Erik Bruchez to suggest requirement to share handlers via lighterweight syntax than ev:listener to Shane McCarron and Mark Birbeck. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/16-Forms-minutes.html#action03]

<Nick> I find <listener event="event-type-1" handler="#handler"/> <listener event="event-type-2" handler="#handler"/> is quite simple

<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 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/16-Forms-minutes.html#action04]

<Schnitz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2006JulSep/0161.html

<Nick> no he sent regrets

<Nick> he means the e-mails sent to the editors list

<Schnitz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2006Dec/0062.html

<Nick> I guess

<John_Boyer> I believe the email typed above, or some variation of it, became a last call comment and could be dealt with there.

basically, MK suggests a solution for adding XPath functions in XForms that minimizes clashes in the future

<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

unfortunately I won't be at the f2f

but I could call in for that particular discussion

<Schnitz> John, we think we should discuss this at the F2F

yup

<John_Boyer> Yes, last call issues will be discussed there as well, so it seems we would get to it there either way

<Schnitz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2007JanMar/0053.html

<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.

the term "acceptable" is just not working here in the first place I think

I have also submitted more comments regarding bindings in another email

I think that may entail a rework of the whole area

<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

I mean the whole section about bindings

trying to find the link

well, following recent discussions on bindings with John in public-forms, I think we need to do some work there

<John_Boyer> It's certainly true that 7.4 eval context needed a full rewrite, so some surgery on 7.5 is conceivalbe

<Schnitz> ebruchez, what do u suggest, striking acceptable and/or reworking the sections?

the thing is, any expression that returns a node-set is acceptable

it's just some are dynamic bindings, some are not

<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

<John_Boyer> By acceptable we mean that they won't work correctly

but I don't understand it ;-)

not by the standard meaning of "acceptable"

<John_Boyer> It's unacceptable that things don't work as you would expect

then dynamic bindings are prohibited?

<John_Boyer> In a perfect union of xpath and xforms, ignoring algorithmic complexities

if they are allowed, then they are acceptable

either way we need a rewrite and to use a different term

<John_Boyer> they would work properly, but they don't.

<John_Boyer> we could use a different word than 'acceptable' as long as someone proposes one

<klotz> ok, moving on to next agenda item.

<Schnitz> moving on to

<Schnitz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2006Feb/0001

<John_Boyer> that issue alone didn't inspire me to go off and rewrite the section though

more than the word, we need to actaully explain what we mean

it is an issue I think if even XForms experts don't understand how UI bindings work ;-)

<unl> zakim unmute me

<John_Boyer> Ah yes, the inability to create dependencies problem...

we take the first one too

<jturner> think so too

<Nick> didn't we talk about it at Palo Alto?

<John_Boyer> we do too.

<John_Boyer> yes we did

<Nick> can't find the minutes

<John_Boyer> it was acrimonious as I recall

<Nick> does anybody has a link to the minutes of palo alto?

<Schnitz> John, all take the first one, I think we can (re-)agree on this

<Schnitz> all means all implementations on the call today

<John_Boyer> that's because you don't have Mark and Raman there

<Schnitz> David is asking:

<Schnitz> I

<Schnitz> believe the specification should state that for closed selections the

<Schnitz> first matching item must be the one selected

here is the link to my message to www-forms-editor regarding section 7

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2007May/0006.html

<John_Boyer> They argued strongly that a "select1" should select multiple items if they match the value

<John_Boyer> because you're selecting one value

<John_Boyer> I thought it should select1 item

<Nick> I want to read the minutes first

<John_Boyer> but there are just enough wrong words in the spec that it can be read either way

ah, visually select multiple

<Roger> thx & bye

<Nick> bye

bye

<jturner> bye

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

16 May 2007

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output