IRC log of forms on 2007-09-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:15:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #forms
07:15:05 [RRSAgent]
logging to
07:15:14 [Steven]
rrsagent, make log member
07:15:32 [Steven]
rrsagent, make log public
07:16:06 [Steven]
Steven has changed the topic to: Forms WG FtF, Madrid, Spain
07:16:22 [Nick]
Nick has joined #Forms
07:16:27 [Steven]
Meeting: Forms FtF, Madrid, Spain, Day 1 of 3
07:16:31 [Steven]
Chair: John
07:21:05 [Steven]
07:21:28 [Steven]
Steven has changed the topic to: Forms FtF, Madrid Spain, Agenda:
07:36:11 [Charlie]
Charlie has joined #forms
07:40:47 [Roger]
Roger has joined #forms
07:42:08 [Steven]
Present: John, Charlie, Steven, Nick, Rogelio, Rafael
07:44:40 [Steven]
Regrets: Lars, MarkS, Erik(today), Kenneth
07:45:28 [John_Boyer]
John_Boyer has joined #forms
07:45:48 [John_Boyer]
rrsagent, make log public
07:46:08 [Steven]
Scribe: Steven
07:49:04 [John_Boyer]
Editor's draft, diff marked version:
07:49:52 [markbirbeck]
markbirbeck has joined #forms
07:50:32 [John_Boyer]
07:50:34 [markbirbeck]
markbirbeck has joined #forms
07:52:46 [Steven]
Topic: AGenda review
07:52:50 [Steven]
07:53:03 [Steven]
John: We have 48 issues to review, about 16 a day
07:53:13 [Steven]
Charlie: Plus the SMIL3 review
07:53:20 [Steven]
... which has to be in on Friday
07:54:11 [Steven]
John: Some issues are all on the same subject so we can do them at the same time
07:54:24 [Steven]
John: We have an issue about the XForms 1.1 schema too
07:54:34 [Steven]
... the current schema is not up to date
07:54:49 [Steven]
... so we need to review it and update it
07:55:25 [Steven]
... and I'm going to pick on MarkB here
07:55:48 [Steven]
... since he has an overdue action item on this
07:56:13 [Steven]
... we should do this on Friday
07:56:37 [Steven]
John: On the XML conference, we have a 2hr 15 min session so our schedule is OK
07:56:50 [Steven]
... so we need to gather the stuff and make a blurb
07:56:57 [Steven]
... bios, pics and abstracts
07:57:08 [Steven]
... to advertise the event
07:57:27 [Steven]
ACTION: Leigh and Steven to create conference blurb
07:57:27 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-396 - And Steven to create conference blurb [on Leigh Klotz, Jr. - due 2007-09-19].
07:58:46 [Steven]
trackbot-ng, help
07:58:46 [trackbot-ng]
See for help (use the IRC bot link)
07:59:07 [Steven]
trackbot-ng, pointer?
08:02:03 [Steven]
John: Where do we record future meetings?
08:02:08 [Steven]
Steven: Wiki
08:02:32 [Steven]
... we have meetings planned up to October next year
08:03:30 [Steven]
John: The charter says 3 or 4 meetings per year, so we could drop one
08:03:40 [Steven]
Charlie: Let's discuss all this Friday
08:04:00 [Steven]
Topic: meaning of focus event on container form controls
08:04:06 [Steven];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
08:04:29 [Nick]
08:04:54 [Steven]
John: That's the spec-ready text
08:05:25 [Steven]
... part of the problem has been a lack of rigour over what a form control actually is
08:06:27 [Steven]
John: The diffs you see are against the last call version
08:07:50 [Steven]
John: So I have defined 'core' controld and 'container' controls
08:08:59 [John_Boyer]
08:09:44 [Steven]
Nick: I have no problem with these changes, but I do with the definition of repeat object
08:10:04 [Steven]
John: We can do that later
08:13:30 [Steven]
Charlie: But isn't there a need to set focus on a group?
08:14:05 [Steven]
Steven: What would that mean? What can I do to a group?
08:14:32 [Steven]
... I like this approach here because it means I can focus on the first control in a group without worrying about relevance
08:15:32 [Steven]
Rafael: This is what we do, when we set focus to the group
08:16:22 [Steven]
Charlie: I'm not pushing strongly, but point out that there are other use cases
08:17:01 [Steven]
Nick: If you want to do that, you can cancel the event, and everyone is happy
08:17:10 [Steven]
Charlie: OK. As long as there is a work around
08:17:33 [Steven]
RESOLVED: Accept issue 155
08:19:39 [John_Boyer]
08:20:27 [Steven]
Topic: Repeat Index
08:20:37 [Steven];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
08:21:10 [Steven]
John: My issue, a bit weird
08:22:05 [Steven]
... the spec says if the index changes, we do a rebuild
08:23:18 [Steven]
s/says/doesn't say/
08:23:25 [Steven]
... but it needs to
08:23:42 [Steven]
... because of the index() fuction
08:23:56 [Steven]
... the problem is that the index function doesn't create dependencies
08:24:28 [Steven]
... so there is something wrong with the index function
08:24:46 [Steven]
Rafael: for the dynamic UI in general
08:24:56 [Steven]
... it would be useful to use the index function
08:25:11 [Steven]
... complicated to do in XForms right now
08:25:28 [Steven]
John: THe spec says about dynamic predicates must work in UI bindings
08:25:33 [Steven]
08:25:40 [Steven]
... without saying how
08:25:47 [Steven]
... but it does at least require it
08:26:25 [Steven]
08:27:39 [Steven]
John: Are people happy with this?
08:28:00 [Steven]
Steven: I like decalrative defintions, where it says it should work, without saying how to implement it
08:28:10 [Steven]
08:28:19 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
08:28:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Steven
08:31:49 [Steven]
[discussion of implementation techniques]
08:33:32 [Steven]
John: My proposal is to leave it as is for 1.1, and address int he future
08:33:42 [Steven]
s/int he/in the/
08:34:04 [Steven]
Charlie: We need to consider it in the context of splitting model and UI
08:36:40 [Steven]
Steven: We discussed in the past, and we need to rething the idea of having a sort of hidden instance that reflects the values in the UI, like repeat indexes, and then everything drops out, since you have the necessary constrains, and you can even bind to them
08:37:17 [Steven]
RESOLUTION: Defer issue 24 to XForms 2.0
08:37:45 [Steven]
Topic: Treatment of Event Handlers inside Repeated Content
08:37:53 [Steven];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
08:38:08 [Steven]
Issue 153
08:42:35 [Steven]
John: THis is about the difference between the markup and the shadow tree
08:42:52 [Steven]
Nick: You need to treat it as if the repeat element is in the DOM
08:43:01 [Steven]
Charlie: I agree
08:43:09 [Steven]
John: That's the model I prefer
08:43:26 [Steven]
... but I left the text to allow either approach
08:44:06 [John_Boyer]
08:45:54 [Steven]
Steven: It says that there is an implicitly generated group element
08:46:09 [Steven]
... what if the CSS selects on groups?
08:48:58 [Steven]
John: The problem with the idea that repeated items add items to the DOM is that they may generate DOM mutation events
08:49:48 [Steven]
... the problem comes with XML Events
08:50:19 [Steven]
08:54:46 [Steven]
... and the moment that action handlers are registered with respect to model creation and UI creation
09:03:20 [Steven]
John: <repeat id="x"><action ....
09:03:28 [Steven]
... gets expanded to
09:03:59 [Steven]
... <repeat id="x"><action.../><group>
09:04:28 [Steven]
Nick: No, to <repeat id="x"><group><action ev:observer="x"/>
09:05:24 [Steven]
John: Good
09:05:37 [Steven]
... so we need to say that
09:06:12 [Steven]
Nick: Why?
09:06:39 [Steven]
John: Because events can happen before the UI gets created
09:08:16 [Steven]
Nick: But other 'magic' things happen anyway; leave it to the implementor
09:11:52 [Steven]
John: I think we all agree that the sentence "The capture and bubble phase of XML Events dispatched to these run-time objects is confined to the repeat object." should be removed in
09:11:58 [Steven]
... 9.3.3
09:12:04 [Steven]
09:16:39 [Steven]
Steven: As a point of process, we should always create dated versions when we discuss them so that the links in the minutes will work in the future
09:19:43 [Steven]
[John edits]
09:25:20 [John_Boyer]
28<21note20 diff28="add28">rn 28<21p28>The capture and bubble phases of XML events dispatched to the run-time objects behave as if the rn repeat object were a child of element 28<21el28>repeat28</21el28>. The repeat template content, including rn action handlers are made unavailable to the host language processor.28</21p28>rn 28</21note28>
09:32:17 [Steven]
09:54:03 [Steven]
09:55:27 [John_Boyer]
28The capture and bubble phases of XML events dispatched to the run-time objects behave as if the repeat object were a child of element repeat. The repeat template content, including action handlers, are made unavailable to the host language processor. Hence, action handlers declared within a repeat respond only to events dispatched to elements withi
09:55:42 [John_Boyer]
28the repeat object, not to the repeat element itself.
10:00:59 [Steven]
[Last sentence gets deleted]
10:01:06 [Steven]
[XML gets deleted]
10:27:38 [John_Boyer]
28The editor's spec available at the start of the FtF is now at
10:30:36 [John_Boyer]
10:30:59 [Steven]
Topic: Remaining CDF issues
10:31:09 [Steven];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
10:31:17 [Steven]
Issue 124
10:33:23 [Steven]
RESOLUTION: Don't change the abstract
10:34:05 [Steven]
Issue 125
10:34:06 [Steven];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
10:35:23 [Steven]
John: We disagree, because we don't want to be tied to their timeframe, and we don't want to be tied to their processing model
10:35:38 [Steven]
RESOLUTION: Reject issue 125
10:36:14 [Steven]
Issue 126
10:36:14 [Steven];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
10:40:52 [Steven]
Charlie: Let's put it in, but not reference it
10:41:52 [Steven]
RESOLUTION: Modify and accept issue 126: ADD odf, BUT DON'T REFERENCE IT
10:45:46 [Steven]
Topic: Differences with 1.0
10:46:42 [Steven];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
10:46:55 [Steven]
Steven: I have done a talk, see:
10:47:05 [Steven]
10:47:20 [Steven]
... and search for XForms 1.1
11:03:17 [Steven]
11:05:54 [Steven]
RESOLUTION: Accept issue 162
11:06:10 [Steven]
Steven produced initial text at URL above
11:06:17 [Steven]
this only reflects the last call version
11:06:20 [John_Boyer]
11:06:43 [Steven]
ACTION: Nick to convert differences with XForms 1.0 to xml spec
11:06:43 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-397 - Convert differences with XForms 1.0 to xml spec [on Nick Van Den Bleeken - due 2007-09-19].
11:07:02 [Steven]
Topic: root elem around xforms
11:07:11 [Steven];user=guest;statetype=-1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
11:08:38 [Steven]
RESOLUTION: Reject issue 171
11:08:50 [Steven]
John: It's just so easy to create your own root element
11:08:51 [John_Boyer];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
11:09:04 [Steven]
Topic: plan for submission examples
11:09:11 [Steven];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
11:09:48 [Steven]
RESOLUTION: Accept issue 163
11:11:18 [Steven]
John: We need examples for: replace all, replace instance, replace none
11:11:33 [Steven]
... xforms-submit-done, xforms-submit-error
11:11:54 [Steven]
... dynamic URL in the resource section
11:12:05 [Steven]
... header use
11:12:50 [Steven]
... maybe not that last one
11:15:52 [Steven]
... since it would be too involved
11:17:01 [Steven]
Topic: Problem of requiring order of submission children
11:17:08 [Steven];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
11:20:22 [Steven]
Mark: I agree
11:21:41 [Steven]
John: So this means some spec change
11:21:55 [Steven]
Nick: So this will be a substantial change
11:23:33 [Steven]
Steven: but not significantly substantial :-)
11:23:52 [Steven]
RESOLUTION: Accept issue 4
11:24:25 [Steven]
ACTION: Steven create submission examples
11:24:25 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-398 - Create submission examples [on Steven Pemberton - due 2007-09-19].
11:24:48 [Steven]
ACTION: John create repairs for order of children of submit
11:24:48 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - John
11:24:48 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jkugelma, jboyer)
11:25:26 [Steven]
ACTION: johnboyer create repairs for order of children of submit
11:25:26 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - johnboyer
11:25:42 [Steven]
trackbot-ng list
11:25:50 [Steven]
trackbot-ng, list
11:25:58 [Steven]
trackbot-ng, help
11:25:58 [trackbot-ng]
See for help (use the IRC bot link)
11:26:50 [Steven]
trackbot, status
11:26:58 [Steven]
trackbot-ng, status
11:28:06 [Steven]
ACTION: John_Boyer to do nothing
11:28:06 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - John_Boyer
11:30:15 [wellsk]
wellsk has joined #forms
11:32:59 [Steven]
Tracker's url:
11:33:15 [Steven]
ACTION: JohnB to do nothing
11:33:15 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - JohnB
11:33:31 [Steven]
ACTION: JohnBoyer to do nothing
11:33:31 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - JohnBoyer
11:33:41 [Steven]
11:56:25 [wellsk]
wellsk has left #forms
12:06:22 [klotz]
klotz has joined #forms
12:31:49 [wellsk]
wellsk has joined #forms
12:59:46 [Steven]
13:01:13 [klotz]
Dark outside.
13:01:18 [Steven]
klotz? Are you on?
13:01:27 [klotz]
yes, skyped you a few times but you refused.
13:01:33 [Steven]
I wasn't here!
13:02:44 [Steven]
Wait leigh!
13:02:57 [Steven]
I have to add you to conference
13:03:00 [Steven]
You can't call me
13:03:37 [Charlie]
Charlie has joined #forms
13:04:05 [John_Boyer];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
13:05:05 [Steven]
Topic: dateTimeDuration and yearMonthDuration
13:05:22 [Steven];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
13:05:26 [Steven]
Issue 137
13:05:42 [Roger]
Roger has joined #forms
13:06:09 [Steven]
Scribe: Charlie
13:06:11 [klotz]
i hear Steven but nobody else; is that expected?
13:07:04 [Charlie]
xforms uses schema 1.0 but dayTimeDuration and yearMonthDuration are in 1.1
13:07:31 [Charlie]
c/in 1.1/not in 1.0
13:07:42 [klotz]
i will stick with this for now then thanks
13:08:04 [Charlie]
john: we're interested in the xforms: types since those allow empty content
13:08:14 [Charlie]
and can be used without schema qualification
13:08:31 [Charlie]
steven: we've adoped these types but in our namespaces
13:08:43 [Charlie]
john: the suggestion was to use them in the original xsd namespace
13:08:52 [Charlie]
but ours were introduced to allow for the empty content
13:10:19 [Charlie]
steven: reply should be we introduced the xforms namespaced types to allow for the empty content, the xsd namespace can be used
13:10:26 [Charlie]
if the original types are desired
13:10:37 [Charlie]
no use case to pull them into the default namespace
13:11:12 [Charlie]
markB: don't see the empty types as an advantage
13:11:25 [Charlie]
have to maintain two set of type defs
13:11:54 [klotz]
i had proposed MIP optional to mean elide-if-empty before submission validation.
13:12:33 [Charlie]
john: seems easy to add these two types to the implicit schema that provides the rest of the xsd types
13:13:01 [Charlie]
markB: no big problem to include them if we want
13:13:52 [Nick]
13:15:01 [Charlie]
nick: where do we list those implicit types?
13:15:17 [Charlie]
since they're not in schema 1
13:15:34 [Charlie]
John: needs to be additional text in section 5.1 to mention them separately
13:16:57 [Charlie]
nick: if we add these two but if xsd:duration is not allowed as stated in 5.1 how can these new ones work?
13:17:34 [Charlie]
john: we exclude the ones mentioned since we define an xforms namespace that lists all types except for these four..don't know why they were excluded
13:17:59 [Charlie]
john: likely to direct users to our types
13:18:13 [Rafael]
Rafael has joined #forms
13:18:30 [klotz]
they were new types added after xforms 1.0 by the xml schema folks
13:19:01 [Charlie]
john: we could stick with xml schema 1.0 types, and hence not add them now
13:20:01 [Charlie]
john: xsd:duration was excluded since it didn't allow empty content
13:20:49 [klotz]
xsd:duration was excluded because it's not comparable; it should have been an abstract type.
13:20:55 [klotz]
which is longer 1 month or 30 days?
13:21:37 [Charlie]
john: proposed resolution that we stick with just schema 1.0 types and extend them when we transition to schema 2.0
13:21:52 [klotz]
it's not clear that it is a schema 2.0 type.
13:21:55 [Charlie]
john: and xforms ones can be used with the required MIP to allow/enforce emptyness
13:22:29 [Charlie]
c/to schema 2.0/to later version of schema
13:22:55 [klotz]
i think they types are defined now in XQuery and are imported by W3C magic already.
13:23:26 [Rafael]
Rafael has joined #forms
13:23:34 [John_Boyer]
The fuzzy answer is that one month is longer
13:23:47 [John_Boyer]
Since it is longer 7 out of 12 times
13:23:56 [Nick]
XForms 1.1 is based on XML schema 1.0, we only want to add schema 1.0 data types to XForms 1.1. We will add new schema types when we move to a newer version of the schema spec.
13:24:09 [klotz]
The comparable issue is why we removed xsd:duration; I can find the minutes, but it was Micah.
13:24:45 [Charlie]
proposed resolution: for issue 137 stick with types defined in schema 1.0 and add new types when we transition to later versions of schema
13:24:55 [Charlie]
markB: looks ok
13:25:13 [Charlie]
Leigh: not clear this comes from schema itself
13:25:25 [Charlie]
john: not available from xml schema 1.0 recommendation
13:26:05 [John_Boyer]
We are the ones who write the implicit schema that declares which datatypes from XML Schema we support
13:26:32 [klotz]
13:27:04 [Charlie]
john: we could state more precisely that we support xml schema types defined in schema rec and cite that doc
13:28:33 [Charlie]
john: though our link in the reference section doesn't qualify the spec version with a date
13:28:43 [Charlie]
john: but the 2004 version of schema 1.0 doesn't include these types either
13:29:13 [Nick]
13:30:13 [Charlie]
nick: appendix addresses adding durations to the existing types, so this might allow a mechanism using schema 1.0
13:30:25 [Charlie]
john: this is how to compute a dateTime
13:30:44 [Charlie]
Steven: proposed resolution: for issue 137 stick with types defined in schema 1.0 and add new types when we transition to later versions of schema
13:31:51 [Charlie]
RESOLUTION: for issue 137 stick with types defined in schema 1.0 and add new types when we transition to later versions of schema
13:33:23 [Charlie]
ACTION: John Boyer to reply for issue 137 as in resolution
13:33:23 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - John
13:33:23 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jkugelma, jboyer)
13:34:35 [Charlie]
Topic: Issue 7
13:35:13 [John_Boyer];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
13:36:42 [Charlie]
cites the xquery data model for the same two types, should be the same resolution
13:37:30 [Charlie]
ACTION: john boyer to respond to issue 7 similarly to issue 137
13:37:30 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - john
13:37:30 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jkugelma, jboyer)
13:37:42 [Charlie]
Topic: Issue 6
13:38:03 [John_Boyer];user=guest;selectid=6;statetype=-1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
13:39:16 [Charlie]
John: issue is asking for clarification of lexical vs value space
13:39:23 [Charlie]
steven: i think they're right, we should do this
13:39:47 [Charlie]
we're talking about values in the model but not in the controls
13:40:31 [Charlie]
we should clarify the difference here, we're not requiring users to enter xsd types in that format
13:40:50 [Charlie]
john: we should add something to the text to make this clear
13:41:02 [Charlie]
but in some cases we're not clear as to what actually go into the model, e.g. email
13:41:09 [Charlie]
13:44:38 [Charlie]
john: section 8.1.1 states the display representation is not required to match the "lexical" value -- meaning here the value-space value
13:44:57 [Charlie]
john: so our own terminology is not consistent, but we do make the distinction
13:45:06 [Charlie]
steven: would like credit cards to be explicitly added to this list
13:45:12 [klotz]
i had that in xforms 1.0 example but it was removed
13:45:32 [klotz]
i had it in the value space though so that was why
13:45:39 [Charlie]
nick: this may be more clear
13:45:48 [Charlie]
john: we could leave "display representation" in parens
13:46:07 [Charlie]
but we should clean up the text
13:46:26 [Charlie]
and in section 5 we don't have to define lexical vs. value space -- that's xml schema
13:46:48 [Charlie]
steven: reply as been sent that we agree
13:46:51 [Charlie]
13:48:22 [Charlie]
ACTION: john boyer to fix section 8 text, and also include in section 5, adding note referring to section 8
13:48:22 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - john
13:48:22 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jkugelma, jboyer)
13:48:54 [Steven]
ACTION: jboyer to do nothing
13:48:54 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-399 - Do nothing [on John Boyer - due 2007-09-19].
13:50:21 [raman]
raman has joined #forms
13:50:35 [Charlie]
Topic: Issue 102
13:50:36 [raman]
buenos dias!
13:50:41 [Charlie]
13:50:55 [Charlie];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
13:51:05 [Charlie]
Steven: i have an action item for this already
13:51:28 [raman]
on the bus going to work ... thought you guys were in the middle of your siesta when I first joined (incorrectly) the #xforms channel
13:51:36 [Charlie]
i'll check out the previous discussion
13:52:17 [Charlie]
john: don't see an action for issue 102
13:54:38 [Charlie]
ACTION: steven to respond to issue 102
13:54:48 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-400 - Respond to issue 102 [on Steven Pemberton - due 2007-09-19].
13:54:55 [Steven]
13:55:35 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
13:55:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Steven
13:56:18 [Charlie]
john: text in section 6 on MIP should also be reflected in 8.1 common to all controls
13:56:54 [Charlie]
john: we already have some similar text there on valid and invalid states
13:57:09 [bubbles]
bubbles has joined #forms
13:57:11 [Charlie]
john: stated as MUST for valid/invalid, not should
13:57:42 [bubbles]
bubbles has left #forms
13:58:32 [Charlie]
Topic: Issue 33
13:58:57 [Charlie];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
14:02:16 [Charlie]
John: i've moved the DOM interface subsection into section 4 on the processing model, didn't really want a top-level section for it
14:03:07 [Charlie]
RESOLUTION: move DOM interface hasFeature method discussion to section 4
14:05:01 [Charlie]
Topic: Issue 156
14:05:04 [John_Boyer]
14:05:58 [Charlie]
John: aaron asks whether hasFeature should return 1.1
14:06:42 [Charlie]
john: when referring to DOM interface
14:06:57 [Charlie]
John: the feature string is DOMImplementation
14:07:40 [Charlie]
s/string is/string is referring to the
14:07:51 [Charlie]
john: not referring to the entire spec
14:08:42 [Charlie]
john: org.w3c.xforms.dom 1.0 is the version of the interface we're supporting
14:08:49 [Charlie]
john: we haven't changed this interface in xforms 1.1
14:09:08 [Charlie]
john: we're not talking about the version of xforms here, but of DOM
14:10:11 [Charlie]
john: the property function will return the level of xforms which seems to be what aaron wants
14:11:25 [Charlie]
RESOLUTION: return value for hasFeature for DOM interface is that it returns 1.0 level of the DOM not referring to xforms 1.1
14:12:27 [Charlie]
Topic: Issue 140
14:12:37 [Charlie];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
14:20:46 [Charlie]
John: suggestion is to use xpath 2.0 now
14:20:55 [Charlie]
Steven: very big change
14:21:02 [Charlie]
John: we resolved to do this after xforms 1.1
14:21:29 [Steven]
s/very big/too big of a/
14:21:36 [Charlie]
john: there are some open issues which need to be resolved, e.g. semantics of "if"
14:22:01 [Charlie]
john: i've inserted text into the issue DB assuming we'll do this in xforms 2.0
14:22:20 [Charlie]
john: assuming xforms 1.2 is mostly about ease of authoring, not foundational issues
14:22:48 [Charlie]
john: and we did deprecate "if" laying the foundation for xpath 2.0
14:23:11 [Charlie]
john: and removed the rationalization of the return type of choose()
14:23:55 [Charlie]
john: and other issues will require actual transition to xpath 2.0 which will be a major revision to xforms language
14:24:31 [Charlie]
RESOLUTION: for issue 140 to defer adoption of xpath 2.0 to later version of xforms
14:24:51 [Charlie]
john: this should go into "defer" state -- we agree it's coming
14:25:34 [Charlie]
Topic: Issue 141
14:25:43 [Charlie];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
14:26:24 [Charlie]
xpath 2.0 provides more formal definition of evaluation context which would help
14:26:55 [Charlie]
Nick: should we mention a specific xforms version when we'll adopt xpath 2.0?
14:27:12 [Charlie]
john: probably good to start laying expectations for when we'll some of these things
14:27:44 [Charlie]
john: so we should in response to issue 140 say xforms 2.0 explicitly, yes
14:28:29 [Charlie]
RESOLUTION: for Issue 141 that xpath 2.0 will be adopted in a future xforms version
14:28:59 [Charlie]
Topic: Issue 143
14:29:01 [Charlie];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
14:30:25 [Charlie]
John: issue is that some functions in xforms are similar to those in xpath 2.0
14:30:52 [Charlie]
john: e.g. boolean vs boolean-from-string() in xpath 2.0
14:31:11 [Charlie]
john: suggestion is that they be xforms namespace qualified
14:32:47 [Charlie]
john: and give users some way to select the function namespace to be used
14:34:54 [Charlie]
john: but xpath 1.0 processors don't allow for selecting a function namespace
14:36:20 [Charlie]
RESOLUTION: for issue 143 defer namespacing for xforms functions to discussion of xpath 2.0 in later version of xforms
14:36:48 [Charlie]
Topic: Issue 144
14:37:02 [Charlie];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
14:41:23 [klotz]
i will wander off to eat breakfast and back in a bit.
14:45:34 [Steven]
14:47:27 [Charlie]
Topic: Issue 144
14:48:02 [Charlie]
john: "if" function not allowed in xpath 2.0
14:48:12 [Charlie]
john: so thinking about transition strategy to xpath 2.0 is important
14:48:17 [Charlie]
john: no solution suggested
14:48:31 [Charlie]
steven: response could be we have deprecated it and are thinking about transition strategy
14:48:54 [Charlie]
nick: we could in xforms 2.0 prefix "if" with namespace
14:49:02 [Charlie]
john: we might not even keep it in xforms 2.0
14:49:20 [Charlie]
john: given that xforms 2.0 will be associated in developers' minds with xpath 2.0
14:49:45 [Charlie]
RESOLUTION: for issue 144 not to namespace qualify "if" in xforms 1.1
14:51:26 [Charlie]
Topic: Issue 149
14:51:29 [Charlie];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
14:52:04 [Charlie]
john: issue is the id function in xforms given its semantics are similar but not identical to id in xpath 2.0
14:52:28 [Charlie]
john: we designed id in xforms to match xpath 2.0 as closely as possible, to prepare for transitions
14:55:04 [NickVdB]
NickVdB has joined #Forms
14:55:15 [Charlie]
RESOLUTION: for issue 149 design of id function unchanged -- any differences with xpath 2.0 to be addressed when we transition to it
14:55:45 [Steven]
Steven has joined #forms
14:58:16 [Charlie]
Topic: Issue 145
14:58:19 [Charlie];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
14:58:28 [John_Boyer]
15:00:37 [Charlie]
John: issue is around non-pure functions like random(), but now() and others have this problem already
15:01:12 [Charlie]
nick: issue is around reordering of function calls to optimize xpath engine
15:01:29 [Charlie]
nick: but as you say this is already true in now() in xforms 1.0
15:01:40 [Charlie]
john: do xpath engines do this type of optimization?
15:02:11 [Charlie]
john: if the idea is to avoid re-running functions multiple times if they have the same args this is ok, no?
15:02:48 [Charlie]
nick: this occurs across different xpath expressions, not just within a single one
15:03:01 [Charlie]
nick: replace function call with returned constant value
15:03:22 [Charlie]
john: xpath 1.0 recommendation doesn't suggest this
15:03:29 [Charlie]
john: xslt may optimize calling xpath
15:04:01 [Charlie]
steven: don't see how one could solve this...always call random with now() as solution to the opposite
15:04:29 [Charlie]
john: could replace the function with an action that puts the value into a node
15:04:38 [Charlie]
nick: problem is that these are functions
15:05:25 [Charlie]
john: our problem space consists of functions that can mutate underlying documents and hence change on repeated calls...e.g. id()
15:05:53 [Charlie]
s/mutate/be on mutated/
15:07:33 [Charlie]
john: but this is not the case that the function itself is mutating the dom as side-effect
15:07:55 [Charlie]
john: we don't define functions that mutate the DOM while running
15:09:03 [Charlie]
RESOLUTION: for Issue 145 to accept semantic limitations of random()
15:09:10 [Charlie]
ACTION: jboyer to respond to issue 145
15:09:10 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-401 - Respond to issue 145 [on John Boyer - due 2007-09-19].
15:09:47 [Charlie]
Topic: Issue 146
15:09:49 [Charlie];user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
15:12:02 [Charlie]
John: suggestion is for the decode function to return an additional error in the case that the result is not valid XML even though it is valid UTF-8
15:14:29 [Charlie]
nick: isse relates to control characters
15:14:35 [Charlie]
15:15:05 [klotz]
xml1.1 allows all but char 0, when escaped as numeric entities. xml 1.0 is less forgiving.
15:15:06 [Charlie]
john: char is the one with extra restrictions
15:16:31 [Charlie]
* test
15:16:36 [Steven]
15:18:30 [Charlie]
steven: ok to store these values in an instance, issue is related to serialization when they need to be encoded
15:18:49 [Charlie]
leigh: which character codes?
15:18:54 [Charlie]
steven: control chars
15:19:04 [Charlie]
leigh: these can't be encoded as xml chars
15:19:35 [Charlie]
leigh: in xml 1.0, can do this in xml 1.1 except for char 0
15:19:50 [Charlie]
john: so this remains a problem for the serializer
15:20:38 [Charlie]
john: still looks like normal element content allows these control chars
15:21:13 [klotz]
15:23:41 [klotz]
15:27:03 [Charlie]
john: so the question then is whether xpath data model allows for these characters
15:27:21 [klotz]
ask michael kay
15:28:18 [Charlie]
john: xpath string, a sequence of UCS characters
15:29:38 [Charlie]
steven: so if you have characters in the xpath data model that can't be serialized, this isn't a problem with decode
15:30:34 [Charlie]
leigh: good to separate issues but as of today result of decode might not be representable in xml
15:30:40 [Charlie]
leigh: should put in a note to this effect
15:31:00 [klotz]
yup. and even in xml11 there's still char 0, so it won't work then.
15:31:28 [Charlie]
steven: question is whether error handling goes in encode/decode or somewhere else
15:31:48 [Charlie]
leigh: anyone using infoset will run into this problem
15:32:11 [Charlie]
leigh: xforms without xml would be ok
15:32:26 [Charlie]
s/ok/ok in the data model
15:34:17 [Charlie]
john: but if this is limited to encode/decode we could in fact provide an error condition
15:34:50 [Charlie]
leigh: suggesting a note saying that arbitrary binary data in the instance won't in general be supported
15:35:05 [Charlie]
nick: other problem is you won't see if unless you serialize
15:35:29 [Charlie]
leigh: lots parsers throw errors too
15:35:35 [Charlie]
s/lots/lots of
15:36:12 [Charlie]
nick: some serializers even process it, but output can't be read in again
15:36:41 [Charlie]
john: one approach is to post-process decode for illegal chars and generate an error
15:36:57 [Charlie]
john: do encode after decode and check for valid content
15:38:05 [Charlie]
nick: what if you want to skip over some known non-xml data and process the rest?
15:41:23 [klotz]
15:42:03 [klotz]
15:42:31 [Charlie]
john: we don't define what happens if serialization fails on submit
15:42:47 [Charlie]
leigh: turns out to be a validation error
15:43:06 [Charlie]
leigh: since xsd:string excludes non-xml chars
15:43:13 [Charlie]
nick: but can have nodes with no type
15:43:20 [Charlie]
john: but those would be string
15:43:22 [Charlie]
by default
15:43:32 [Charlie]
john: everything derives from string
15:43:38 [Charlie]
john: so technically we're ok
15:43:44 [Charlie]
john: since validation would fail
15:45:07 [klotz]
15:45:48 [klotz]
Above is Michael Kay on the topic of DOM support for control characters.
15:48:02 [Charlie]
RESOLUTION: for issue 146 add note on storing non-xml valid data generating validation error on submit, under serialization rules, decode rules
15:49:25 [klotz]
But the data is invalid as soon as you enter it becasue it isn't an xsd:string
15:50:15 [klotz]
OK, not that I can hear, but I can't live with this.
15:50:21 [Charlie]
John: deciding to keep names encode, decode?
15:50:53 [John_Boyer]
Can't live iwth what?
15:51:03 [John_Boyer]
15:51:16 [Charlie]
15:51:18 [John_Boyer]
but non-char data is allowed by XPath data model
15:51:24 [John_Boyer]
string defined as set of UCS chars
15:51:45 [Charlie]
leigh: will cause problems with any xml-based implementation
15:51:49 [John_Boyer]
They won't necessarily want to store it
15:52:10 [Charlie]
leigh: within an xpath expression, this is fine
15:52:28 [Charlie]
steven: so you're ok with the function returning possibly non-xml valid chars?
15:52:31 [Charlie]
leigh: yes
15:52:48 [Charlie]
leigh: question is when and where do impls tell people it's invalid?
15:53:15 [John_Boyer]
true that the non-XML data will not be valid according to xsd:string, but
15:53:40 [John_Boyer]
we proposed ot add a comment to say that the non-validity will prevent submission before serialization
15:57:40 [NickVdB]
DocumentBuilder db = dbf.newDocumentBuilder();
15:57:40 [NickVdB]
Document doc = db.parse(new File("src/resources/xml/simple.xml"));
15:57:40 [NickVdB]
15:58:19 [Charlie]
john: so should decode look for invalid content and raise error?
15:58:31 [Charlie]
john: and live with the limitation that we can't operate over invalid data...
15:58:55 [Charlie]
nick: but perhaps there are bugs in some impls related to storing non-xml data
15:59:10 [Charlie]
nick: and we should not limit ourselves accordingly...
16:01:20 [Charlie]
john: what's the purpose of decode? to recover the results of things we encoded, anything else?
16:02:26 [NickVdB]
16:02:55 [Charlie]
john: we now have the ability to submit just text
16:03:18 [Charlie]
nick: but text in DOM level 1 stipulates that text is valid xml
16:03:31 [klotz]
The DOM refers to character data in XML.
16:04:29 [markbirbeck]
16:04:39 [markbirbeck]
was just asking that in the Skype window. :)
16:05:04 [markbirbeck]
16:05:17 [Charlie]
nick: so we don't need a note in submission since setvalue and calculate shouldn't allow non-valid data
16:05:24 [Charlie]
16:05:39 [Charlie]
john: just need a note in decode since it's the only window for this
16:05:42 [klotz]
calculate works ok with data that doesn't match the xsd tyep though, just not submission.
16:07:40 [Charlie]
RESOLUTION: to issue 146 calculate and setvalue amended with exception if data contains invalid xml chars, and note added to decode to this effect
16:08:19 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:08:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Steven
16:09:31 [Steven]
s/RESOLUTION: for issue 146 add note on storing non-xml valid data generating validation error on submit, under serialization rules, decode rules//
16:09:38 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:09:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Steven
16:09:38 [klotz]
Apache Xerces-C implements XMLChar1_0 and XMLChar1_1 separately:
16:11:28 [Charlie]
john: other part of 146 is generic name of encode
16:12:17 [klotz]
16:13:39 [klotz]
he does suggest two encode functions rather than one, base64 and hexbinary, so that suggests names.
16:13:44 [Charlie]
john: proposed resolution -- prefer more generic name since it allows to control the encoding from instance data and add more encodings later
16:14:13 [Charlie]
john: group already decided against two functions
16:14:18 [klotz]
16:14:25 [klotz]
16:14:29 [Charlie]
* beat me
16:15:38 [John_Boyer]
can anyone not live with above proposed res
16:15:43 [Charlie]
s/beat/leigh beat
16:17:46 [Charlie]
RESOLUTION: for issue 146 maintain the original names for encode/decode to allow for controlling encode/decode from instance data and to add more encodings later
16:20:51 [Steven]
16:22:01 [klotz]
what is john saying?
16:23:19 [Charlie]
16:23:42 [klotz]
maybe we should redefine handling of xsd:base64 and xsd:hexbinary types to say that we automagically encode data when putting it there.
16:25:51 [John_Boyer]
we're on to the question of whether serializatoins other than UTF-8 are needed
16:25:58 [John_Boyer]
for the interim format for encode decode
16:26:10 [John_Boyer]
for encode we UTF-8 serialize, then convert to b64 or hex
16:26:26 [Charlie]
16:26:35 [klotz]
if it's binary data it really should be bytes not characters.
16:30:35 [John_Boyer]
XPath 1.0 seems to reference UCS only and implies that UCS-2 is acceptable, not always UC-4
16:30:43 [John_Boyer]
16:30:57 [John_Boyer]
So it's a little unclear what the binary actually is
16:31:46 [klotz]
Strings in XPath are Unicode, not UTF/UCS.
16:32:02 [klotz]
XPath: Strings consist of a sequence of zero or more characters, where a character is defined as in the XML Recommendation [XML].
16:32:13 [klotz]
A single character in XPath thus corresponds to a single Unicode abstract character with a single corresponding Unicode scalar value
16:32:25 [klotz]
this is not the same thing as a 16-bit Unicode code value"
16:32:30 [John_Boyer]
16:32:35 [John_Boyer]
Xpath 1.0 says "string (a sequence of UCS characters) rn"
16:32:53 [klotz]
Please see
16:34:36 [John_Boyer]
The data model doesn't reference XML characters
16:34:56 [John_Boyer]
In definition of string in introduction it says sequence of UCS characters
16:35:11 [John_Boyer]
So "character data" in string data model definition means "UCS characters"
16:35:21 [klotz]
So what's wrong with ?
16:35:31 [John_Boyer]
Or, nobody noticed the disconnect
16:35:49 [John_Boyer]
Ah, I see, a third definition
16:35:57 [klotz]
They use UCS to mean ISO 10646 character set, not to mean UTF-8 encoding.
16:36:30 [klotz]
The internal data structure of a string looks to me like it's Unicode code poitns corresponding to legal XML characters which are defined in ISO 10646.
16:41:47 [klotz]
32 bit encoding will give you a lot of 000000410000004200000043
16:42:41 [klotz]
Nice chart of Unicode encodings (32 bits of unicode to UCS*, UTF*, ASCII):
16:43:58 [Charlie]
nick: i'm worried that our decode/encode are now incorrect given the chars not allowed in xml
16:45:06 [klotz]
decoding base64/hex should either decode to byte arrays or should take an encoding such as UTF-8 assuming it's encoded byte representations of UTF-8, which then is turned into unicode code points.
16:46:42 [Charlie]
john: encode/decode were added when considering the hmac function as generalizations of some needed function there
16:47:08 [Charlie]
john: and digest
16:47:24 [Charlie]
john: now sounds like we have good reasons not to add them
16:48:08 [Charlie]
john: proposed (final) resolution -- remove encode/decode
16:48:16 [klotz]
16:49:58 [klotz]
lost network there it looks like?
16:50:09 [John_Boyer]
no you're still here
16:50:17 [John_Boyer]
but Steven switched off computer
16:50:23 [John_Boyer]
by mistake
16:51:06 [Charlie]
RESOLUTION: for issue 146 delete encode/decode
16:51:09 [John_Boyer]
adjourning shortly
16:51:24 [John_Boyer]
have to remove previous resolution
16:52:14 [Charlie]
s/RESOLUTION: for issue 146 maintain the original names for encode/decode to allow for controlling encode/decode from instance data and to add more encodings later//
16:52:44 [John_Boyer]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:52:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate John_Boyer
16:52:49 [John_Boyer]
rrsagent, bye
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
I see 14 open action items saved in :
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Leigh and Steven to create conference blurb [1]
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Nick to convert differences with XForms 1.0 to xml spec [2]
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Steven create submission examples [3]
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: John create repairs for order of children of submit [4]
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: johnboyer create repairs for order of children of submit [5]
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: John_Boyer to do nothing [6]
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JohnB to do nothing [7]
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JohnBoyer to do nothing [8]
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: John Boyer to reply for issue 137 as in resolution [9]
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: john boyer to respond to issue 7 similarly to issue 137 [10]
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: john boyer to fix section 8 text, and also include in section 5, adding note referring to section 8 [11]
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jboyer to do nothing [12]
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: steven to respond to issue 102 [13]
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jboyer to respond to issue 145 [14]
16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in