Weekly Forms WG Teleconference -- 30 May 2007

<Schnitz> I still have a bit of my cold left, I might be a bit quiet therefore

<John_Boyer> Scribe: Charlie

Reports

<John_Boyer> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0084.html

Next F2F, June 13-15

please fill out reg form

<Roger> me too

Steven: tweaks done
... XForms title is autogenerated-can't be changed

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to change template [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-forms-minutes.html#action01]

please fill out questionnaire as network access and building access is driven off that too

<John_Boyer> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0063.html

John: questionnaire on tech plenary, assume we're shooting for end of the week
... so we have thurs afternoon, fri, sat

Steven: AC meets for 1/2 day, thurs AM so not scheduling WGs for then

so we spill over to Sat AM

and hence need to confirm that WG participants sign up to do this

or we decide to not use sat AM

John: we can work out later, i'll say we're not flexible on days
... made estimate of 6 people attending wed tech plenary

out of about 17

Charlie: i will attend

<Steven> I will

<unl> i won't attend

<John_Boyer> i will

Steven: good idea to attend so groups can meet each other

topics of interest cross-groups

backplane could be discussed

Charlie: if we get IPR resolved...

<Steven> Looks like there are 4 AC reps on the WG

Xforms 1.0 3rd edition

<Steven> .... Sebastian, Raman, Erik, Kenneth

John: doc is about ready

one outstanding issue is regarding patent policy

pub rules checker on 2nd edition, proposed rec was under 2002 policy

pub rules checker was failing at that time given we're now under 2004 policy

we updated to that, passed pub rules, published the doc

was not right process, pub rules changed by june to understand diff policies

status for 3rd edition has to state relationship to previous version

pub rules has "1.0 still under 2002 policy, governed by transition rules as stated in 2004 policy"

just want to be clear where we are

Steven: 2nd ed claimed 2004, but was actually 2002

3rd ed is still under 2002?

John: yes

1.0 2nd edition is wrong to say it's under 2004

Steven: Ian issued call for exclusions...indicates falls under 2004 policy

John: Ian indicated we should go under 2002 policy with transition procedures

and I indicated to him we would do this

I clarified to Ian that we had actually published 2nd edition...waiting for confirmation his recommendation is still correct

Steven: let me check now with him on IRC

Forms joint task force

John: do we need quest. or does it go to HCG

Steven: raised with HCG...need to check their minutes

John: they did discuss, but waiting for us...
... we'll bring it up in next HCG meeting

<Schnitz> k

<John_Boyer> Question about support for xsi:type

<Schnitz> ;-)

Question about support for xsi:type

<John_Boyer> 28<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0076.html>

John: is it valid to use xsi:type when there is no schema?

problem with using xsi:type and referring to internal schema is not valid unless server also loads internal schema

so interesting question

just looking at processors, seems like no problem

but on submission those declarations not available

opinions?

Mark: what are you suggesting?

John: not suggesting either way...

Mark: we discussed a lot of this during xforms basic

I think we should support these types

want the ability to use types without schema for convenience

John: we're not talking about type MIP

Erik: regarding submitted data problem, this is fine with us

no requirement that document needs to be validated with same schema on submission

could have MIP making xsi:types not relevant no submission

stripping those attributes on submisssion

John: anyone believe xsi:type should only be applied if form author as attached a schema?

<Steven> I think the user would expect xsi:type to work

Erik: we did specify xsi:type had semantics of schema, but we didn't specify how this should behave

<John_Boyer> me too

Mark: we refer to schema data types

can be used independently of full schema

Erik: don't have strong opinion...MIP could do the same thing
... was more concerned that the spec was unclear

John: section 5.2, generally section 5, contains language suggesting that processing of instances is informed by schema of xforms

so there's an implict schema available to the parser

5.2 lists xforms data types

as "built-in xml schema datatypes"

Mark: in basic you can use these independently of full schema, so why inhibit use here?

Erik: clear we want to allow in MIP, but in parsing instance it's a bit different

Mark: but why not for consistency allow both?

Erik: could imagine building an instance using xsi:type but not having ability to disable those attributes for validation etc
... but using the bind it's clear whether to valid the node or not

John: this implies xsi:type is not preferred

Mark: xforms full talks about using xml schema, this is available to full processor, basic processors might do something different

Erik: if we want to make xforms schema-language agnostic in the future

Mark: that's future work

Erik: i do think the spec is not very clear on this

need to fix the language to specify that xsi:type attributes are processed even in absence of schema

John: ok...action item???

Erik: do you think it's clear enough?

John: i think you're asking for a statement in section 5 on datatypes

connecting their usage to xsi:type?

Erik: not sure about specific section, it's mentioned several times
... just need to clarify that processor must deal with xsi:type on instance elements

John: not clear to me where this change should be made...where it's unclear

issue needs some more work

Erik, could you look at the spec and see where to make this change?

<scribe> ACTION: Erik to recommend where the spec should be clarified about xsi:type handling [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-forms-minutes.html#action02]

<John_Boyer> 28<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0075.html>

References to 'deferred update behavior'

<John_Boyer> 28<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0075.html>

John: don't mind dropping the word "special"

on the update behavior

since we're just describing normal deferred update behavior, not an exception to it

which is well defined

any objections?

<scribe> ACTION: John to remove "special" on deferred update behavior [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-forms-minutes.html#action03]

<John_Boyer> Need rigorous definition of "Acceptable XPath Expression"

Need rigorous definition of "Acceptable XPath Expression"

<Steven> URL?

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

John: issue we have not defined what's acceptable as an xpath expression

in binding expressions

Erik: also last call comment asking for definition of acceptable xpath expression

"acceptable" is not a good word...we don't say what happens if not acceptable

in bind for example we say a rebuild is required

but in ui binding we don't seem to do the same thing

confusing to me what acceptable means and its consequences

<Steven> My action "10 01Action: Steven to change template" has been done

move away from that term and talk about dynamic bindings and when they can be used

Erik: what we're trying to say is complicated, but we understand how it's supposed to work...wording is just not intuitive

John: sense an action item...

<scribe> ACTION: Erik to propose alternate wording for "acceptable" xpath expression [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/30-forms-minutes.html#action04]

Instance replacement fix needed

Steven: [ot] who has responsibility for adding actions to DB? need this for last call?

John: [ot] for Last call in particular?

Last call issues

John: i'd like to clarify this process

Steven: issues we agree to handle, have to forward to email address of the db

when we deal with an issue, need to update DB with solution

then reply to the person asking if they're ok with the decision

John: what did we do for 1.0

Sebastian: we did this for 1.0

Steven: i think the easy way is for some single person to take this on

Sebastian: agree, would be best for someone with interest in the system

Steven: we're using Shane's system so it's easy

issues just need to be forwarded there, with later update after decision

John: on prior telecon we started that process, made progress up to march 14 on the telecon

Steven: and updated db at same time

John: hoped we could continue that process, with someone to handle db updates...volunteers???

Uli: I will take the job

Steven: i'll fill you in on process offline

<Schnitz> ;-)

Instance replacement fix needed

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007May/0081.html

John: issue is if you replace an instance we don't describe fully in the spec that ui controls might receive value-changed and other MIP events

has led to discussion about other points in the lifecycle where we might have/want events

could be a problem since alerts etc might get fired at initialization

so would suggest we clarify behavior specifically of refresh

after instance replacement, get rrrr sequence

Erik: we have 2 different problems, initialization and instance replacement

can read the spec on refresh and think it works with replacement

John: agree that refresh language is deficient in that it doesn't clarify this

Erik: i was only raising issue of replacement

<markbirbeck> many apologies, but I have to go.

we define refresh based on instance node, with complete replacement it's difficult to define behavior in terms of changes to existing nodes

<Roger> thx & bye

<Blake> bye

<Steven> Uli?

- DRAFT -

Weekly Forms WG Teleconference

30 May 2007

Attendees

Contents

Reports

Xforms 1.0 3rd edition

Forms joint task force

Question about support for xsi:type

References to 'deferred update behavior'

Need rigorous definition of "Acceptable XPath Expression"

Instance replacement fix needed

Last call issues

Instance replacement fix needed

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output