07:29:42 RRSAgent has joined #forms 07:29:42 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-irc 07:29:50 rrsagent, make log public 07:30:15 Meeting: Forms WG FtF, Madrid Spain, Day 2 of 3 07:30:22 Chair: John 07:31:03 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Sep/0041 07:31:22 Charlie has joined #forms 07:31:57 Present: John, Uli, Charlie, Steven, Erik, Nick, Rafael_of_the_two_laptops, Rogelio 07:32:17 John_Boyer has joined #forms 07:32:27 rrsagent, make minutes 07:32:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html Steven 07:32:41 Regrets: Lars, MarkS 07:32:57 Regrets+Kenneth 07:32:59 Roger has joined #forms 07:33:57 unl has joined #forms 07:35:23 unl has joined #forms 07:35:30 s/0041/0050/ 07:36:07 Steven has changed the topic to: Forms FtF, Madrid Spain, Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Sep/0050 07:36:14 rrsagent, make minutes 07:36:14 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html Steven 07:37:24 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/09/12-forms-minutes.html Day 1 07:37:37 rrsagent, make minutes 07:37:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html Steven 07:39:07 Scribe: Steven 07:40:01 Topic: XPath function issues 07:40:12 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/XPath?id=147;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 07:40:14 Issue 147 07:41:48 [on] yes 07:42:10 [up] thanks 07:43:34 http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#func-seconds-from-dateTime 07:43:34 ebruchez has joined #forms 07:43:43 http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#func-seconds-from-dateTime 07:44:27 John: THis is a long-standing xforms function 07:44:32 s/TH/Th/ 07:44:52 John: So we should say the same thing, that we will look into this when we move to XPath 2.0 07:45:24 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second 07:45:30 Charlie: There are both negative and positive leap seconds, added pretty much at random 07:45:37 ... on average once every 18 months 07:45:54 John: We shouldn't support them, too hard 07:46:29 http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/util/Date.html 07:47:13 Rafael has joined #forms 07:52:18 [General agreement] 07:53:38 Charlie: What if you implement with a Java that does support leap seconds? 07:53:49 Steven: Then it is an incorrect implementation 07:54:13 RESOLUTION: No name change, no leap seconds for seconds-from-DateTime 07:54:31 John: And the same again for seconds-to-DateTime 07:54:59 ACTION: jboyer to implement seconds-to/from-dateTime changes 07:55:15 Created ACTION-402 - Implement seconds-to/from-dateTime changes [on John Boyer - due 2007-09-20]. 07:56:08 Topic: Issues with date-time functions 07:56:24 Issue 12 07:56:26 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/XPath?id=12;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 08:01:34 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2006/xforms-for-html-authors-part2.html 08:06:26 Rafael has joined #forms 08:07:34 [Long discussion about whether now() returns the local time or not; Steven claims the current text means it should return the local time, and the timezone is normalized to UTC] 08:21:06 Erik: There are three scenarios 08:21:23 ... local time with tz info 08:21:33 ... local time without tz 08:21:35 ... utc 08:22:04 John: Some of us thought that now always returns a UTC time 08:22:35 ... and some thought it returned the locl time with tz info 08:22:43 ... there is a use case for both 08:23:03 Steven: You can calculate the UTC from the local+tz, but not the other way round 08:24:40 John: This is a good instance of where an example would have made everything clearer 08:26:11 http://books.xmlschemata.org/relaxng/ch19-77049.html 08:26:56 Rafa has joined #forms 08:27:16 Steven: You'll see that xsd:datetime always returns the timezone info as +/- hh:mm 08:28:39 http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime 08:28:55 chapter 3.2.7.2 Canonical representation 08:36:12 How about now() returns the local time... 08:36:23 ....now(0) returns UTC time. 08:36:36 ...now(-8) returns time 8 hours behind UTC... 08:36:39 ...and so on. 08:37:08 Then we don't have to muck around normalising strings, and stuff. It's a real pain, and usually requires script. :) 08:44:30 This is not too different from saying now() returns UTC and local-dateTime() returns the other stuff 08:45:04 I've just checked our implementation and we return the *time* normalised to UTC, I'm afraid. 08:45:36 I agree with Steven that a close read of the spec would have us only normalise the time-zone, but unfortunately that's not the way it has been done. :( 08:45:45 Nick: so 40 minutes off an hour would be now(-7.666666666...a) 08:45:52 Well, I'm checking implementations now 08:45:55 s/...a/... 08:46:03 I haven't found one that disagrees yet 08:47:16 On my system formsPlayer is returning 2007-09-13T09:44:00Z...but I've set my system time-zone to be somewhere in cenral Russia. 08:47:30 In other words, the time has been normalised to UTC, not just the time-zone. 08:54:14 Erik: There are two options: change now, or leave now and add a new function 08:54:50 John: If we leave now, we still have to have a parameter to say what we want 08:55:38 Steven: XSmiles, Novell and Mozilla use the +02:00 form 08:56:14 John: Proposals 1) Now always returns Z 08:56:30 ... and use localDateTime 08:56:45 2) add param to now(), remove localDateTime 08:57:05 The problem is that the current definition refers to "the current system time". Since that is not something that we have defined anywhere, then you cannot assume that the "current system time" == "local time". 08:57:16 3) Add param to now(), make default be local and remove localDateTime 08:58:03 Steven: 4) now() produces tz version, and add a function utc() 09:00:36 John: 5) now() returns local + tz and no other functions 09:00:47 Just ran out of time for this set of issues 09:02:44 a string value in the canonical XML Schema xsd:dateTime format. 09:02:45 Mark, I think you also missed the part of the discussion about "canonical" representation 09:02:50 Mark: I think our (formsPlayer) reading of changing the time is the right one 09:02:50 which further supports what you just said 09:02:55 in schema 09:03:09 http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime-lexical-representation 09:03:34 --> you can only return zulu time 09:04:38 spec says _canonical_ representation http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime-canonical-representation 09:04:44 I agree 100% with Mark 09:05:05 me too 09:11:16 http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime-canonical-representation 09:15:44 [John does a straw poll around the room about which of the solutions we should adopt] 09:15:58 Mark, which of the 5 above best reflects you 09:16:06 Erik: I don't think that is good, but it agrees with what XForms 1.0 says 09:16:25 Steven: Which I think is wrong, since the *intention* was the localtime+tz version 09:16:39 ... (and which several implementations, but not all, do) 09:17:26 Mark: I think now() returning what Steven wants is more useful 09:17:39 ... but I don't like the idea of the spec changing to reflect that 09:18:01 ... I think solution 2) above is best 09:18:43 1) was actually clarify now() as well 09:18:45 John: Can people live with solution 1) 09:19:09 Uli: I can live with 1) 09:19:19 As a general point, I don't think "changing the spec to what we _meant_ to say, rather than what we _did_ say" is a good strategy at this stage in XForms' life. :) Sometimes we just have to live with our mistakes..... 09:19:25 Steven: What can I say? 09:19:30 yes? 09:20:02 Mark, can you live with #1 09:20:33 which we already have 09:21:04 Steven's now() is the 1.1 LC spec's local-dateTime() 09:21:23 Erik: I think that the real right way is to to go the XPath 2.0 route 09:21:54 Steven: I think solution 1 is the best of a bad bunch 09:22:27 Proposed Resolution: Clarify that now() returns Z time only and add examples, keep local-dateTime() 09:22:31 Mark: THe reason that the param version is handy is for doing timezone calculations 09:22:35 s/TH/Th/ 09:24:27 RESOLUTION: Clarify that now() returns Z time only and add examples, keep local-dateTime() and add examples that juxtapose to now() 09:24:45 rrsagent, make minutes 09:24:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html Steven 09:25:30 Action: jboyer to Clarify that now() returns Z time only and add examples, keep local-dateTime() and add examples that juxtapose to now() 09:25:48 Created ACTION-403 - Clarify that now() returns Z time only and add examples, keep local-dateTime() and add examples that juxtapose to now() [on John Boyer - due 2007-09-20]. 09:26:09 RESOLUTION: Clarify that now() returns Z time only and add examples, keep local-dateTime() and add examples that juxtapose to now() 09:29:02 are you having a break? 09:31:18 yes 09:33:00 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2007/ 09:36:18 Action: John to address issue 65 09:36:18 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - John 09:36:19 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jkugelma, jboyer) 09:39:12 unl has joined #forms 09:40:38 back from the break 09:41:02 scribe ebruchez 09:41:10 back from the breakt then 09:41:34 scribe: ebruchez 09:42:46 topic: Issue 12 09:42:53 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/XPath?id=12;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 09:44:04 John: I think that resolution is XForms processor get tz info in an implementation-specific way 09:44:34 Charlie: Right 09:46:16 Proposed Resolution: Respond to issue 12 by saying that the method by which the XForms processor gets the timezone info from the user agent is not specified because it is an implementation detail. 09:46:51 John: Anybody objects? 09:47:01 s/detail/defined 09:47:02 Charlie: Should be "implementation-defined". 09:47:20 s/defined/specific 09:48:23 Mark, I just tried FormsPlayer on now(), and it gets it wrong. It says (for me) 2007-09-13T10:46:31Z, but it is now 9:46Z 09:48:30 Resolution: Respond to issue 12 by saying that the method by which the XForms processor gets the timezone info from the user agent is not specified because it is implementation-defined. 09:49:01 RESOLUTION: Respond to issue 12 by saying that the method by which the XForms processor gets the timezone info from the user agent is not specified because it is implementation-defined. 09:51:03 topic: Issue 11 09:51:11 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/XPath?id=11;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 09:51:43 John: Felix is asking us to decide what we just decided earlier. 09:54:19 Charlie: What if there is no tz info available? 09:54:38 wellsk has joined #forms 09:54:50 Hi Keith 09:54:54 Hi 09:55:31 discussing now http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/XPath?id=11;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 09:55:47 Erik: I think XPath 2.0 says there is always tz information in the context. 09:56:45 John: He is asking we require UTC when there is no tz info. 09:56:53 Erik: What does it mean to be not available? 09:57:16 John: My cell phone doesn't have tz nfo. 09:57:21 s/nfo/info 09:58:22 John: He is just saying that he thinks the result may not have a Z in the end. 09:58:40 Erik: The text is already there. 09:59:13 Proposed Resolution: Accept 11. Instead of implementation default when no tz info available, it should return the time followed by Z, which is the canonical form. 10:00:59 Erik: Not sure I understand this. 10:01:27 When a device has time of 12:00 but no tz info, the result is 12:00Z 10:01:40 So, UTC is the default when no tz info available 10:01:49 Need Z to be in canonical form 10:02:01 Erik: Ok get it. 10:02:39 RESOLUTION: Accept 11. Instead of implementation default when no tz info available, it should return the time followed by Z, which is the canonical form. 10:04:29 ACTION: jboyer to change the text in 7.10.1 to specify that instead of implementation default when no tz info available, it should return the time followed by Z, which is the canonical form. 10:04:35 Created ACTION-404 - Change the text in 7.10.1 to specify that instead of implementation default when no tz info available, it should return the time followed by Z, which is the canonical form. [on John Boyer - due 2007-09-20]. 10:04:50 topic: Issue 63 10:04:55 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/XPath?id=63;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 10:06:08 Erik: Can't you use a type instead? 10:06:17 Steven: No you need to do a calculation. 10:06:58 Proposed Resolution: Accept 63. Change ID-card-number to card-number and change luhn() to card-number() 10:08:11 Could we follow the pattern that is emerging in other functions where we indicate the type of calculation to perform? card-number("luhn")....card-number(@type)....and then card-number() defaults to "luhn"? 10:09:10 Nick: What about XPath 2.0, won't you be able to use "castable as"? 10:09:30 Erik: This would have to be an extension type over XPath 2.0. Not sure how that will work. 10:10:54 Proposed Resolution: Accept 63. Change ID-card-number to card-number and change luhn() to is-card-number() 10:11:03 John: So there can't be a conflict with XPath 2.0, right? 10:11:07 Erik: I don't think os. 10:11:44 s/os/so 10:12:18 RESOLUTION: Accept 63. Change ID-card-number to card-number and change luhn() to is-card-number() 10:12:45 ACTION: jboyer to change ID-card-number to card-number and change luhn() to is-card-number() 10:12:55 Created ACTION-405 - Change ID-card-number to card-number and change luhn() to is-card-number() [on John Boyer - due 2007-09-20]. 10:13:50 ACTION: nick to change XForms schema to change ID-card-number to card-number 10:13:56 Created ACTION-406 - Change XForms schema to change ID-card-number to card-number [on Nick Van Den Bleeken - due 2007-09-20]. 10:14:08 topic: Issue 6 10:14:36 s/Issue 6/Issues 6 and 10 10:15:28 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/Types?user=guest;selectid=6;statetype=-1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 10:15:45 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/Types?id=10;user=guest;statetype=3;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 10:16:21 John: Charlie asked to clarify lexical vs. value space. 10:16:25 28 rnhttp://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#defn-validation-rules 10:16:33 http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#defn-validation-rules 10:18:38 John: This part of the spec is very interesting. Value space vs. lexical space. E.g. concept of "one hundred": could be represented as "100" or "1E2". 10:18:59 or "0100" 10:20:33 Charlie: What about what's displayed on the screen for the user? 10:20:45 John: It's a display value. Different from lexical value. 10:21:27 John: Constraints are only on value and lexical space. 10:24:52 John: So going back to schema 4.1.4, you see that validity tackles lexical space and then the value space. Interesting part is "pattern valid", which applies to the lexical space. 10:25:07 Erik: Pretty clear that patterns apply to the lexical space. 10:26:07 John: To get back to email, it's perfectly legitimate for UI to allow i18n characters, and then boil them down to a valid lexical space for the email type. 10:26:45 John: Question is do you need i18n characters in the lexical space. 10:27:22 Nick: What if you have "e acute"? 10:27:55 John: The XML contains stuff in the lexical space. 10:28:09 Nick: In my example, you won't put "e acute" char in the instance. 10:29:15 Nick: What about putting a constraint? 10:30:52 Steven: It's the task of the emailing app to convert. 10:31:24 Steven: Who does the conversion, the XForms control, or the email sending app. 10:32:06 Charlie: We understand the distinction, but now we need to define the lexical space. 10:32:25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punycode 10:33:44 Erik: We are not the first ones to do this, right? 10:34:18 John: Currently, our pattern implies that the UI does the conversion. 10:35:20 John: If we change that, then how do we convert this for the mailto: protocol? 10:37:35 Erik: What about HTML forms, how do they use it? 10:38:17 Erik: Also see human-readable resource identifiers, idea is to convert from human-readable representation. 10:38:37 John: I think we should defer to a future representation. 10:38:48 s/representation/version of XForms 10:40:21 Nick: But if we don't allow "e acute" now, and defer that to the control, then constraints are hard to calculate, and next version of XForms won't be compatible. 10:41:15 John: We could define two different types to solve the issue of compatibility, e.g. email-rfc2822 10:41:28 Nick: But it's not author-friendly. 10:41:41 Steven: What's the problem? 10:43:23 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt 10:45:50 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punycode 10:45:56 ignore that 10:46:27 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-07.txt 10:46:30 is what I meant 10:47:15 John: But we need to get XForms 1.1 out. 10:48:41 Uli: It would be ok for me to take the email type out. 10:50:35 John: We could just say that the email type is a string without constraints. 10:51:19 John: But when do we care about validation? Server-side may not have xforms:email. 10:52:12 Erik: But when we lose over half of the email feature. 10:52:30 Steven: Some site validate emails wrong. The idea here was to get validation done right. 10:54:02 Steven: I just want the feature to help with email validation. I have a "+" in my address and it fails very often. 10:54:28 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4952.txt 10:54:30 Steven: RFC for i18n email not ready yet. 10:55:08 o|mil|net|name|museum|coop|aero|[a-z][a-z])\b/ ? 10:55:14 maybe : o|mil|net|name|museum|coop|aero|[a-z][a-z])\b/ ? 10:56:45 See also http://www.w3.org/2003/Talks/IETF58mailto/ 11:05:57 Steven: It doesn't seem that we have a spec we can use as inspiration. 11:06:43 RESOLUTION: Defer issue 10 to future xforms where i18mail can be defined and keep current pattern definition of xforms email. 11:09:26 Action: Nick to respond to issue #10 according to resolution to defer i18mail to future and keep current pattern for xforms:email in 1.1 11:09:26 Created ACTION-407 - Respond to issue #10 according to resolution to defer i18mail to future and keep current pattern for xforms:email in 1.1 [on Nick Van Den Bleeken - due 2007-09-20]. 11:09:32 Topic: Issue 6 11:09:34 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/Types?user=guest;selectid=6;statetype=-1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 11:09:52 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/Types?id=6;user=guest;selectid=6;statetype=-1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 11:10:58 John: Issue is we don't explicitly define the lexical space vs. value space. 11:12:18 John: In schema, for each type, you have value space, lexical space, and canonical version. We don't do that. 11:13:21 John: See 5.2.2, which also seems to confuse lexical vs. value space. 11:14:34 Steven: Why do we care about lexical again? 11:14:44 John: Because that's what validation will look at. 11:15:19 John: With the XForms types, we really care more about the lexical space. 11:18:29 Steven: They why do we care about value space? 11:18:35 John: My point. 11:20:48 Steven: (discussing value and lexical space for boolean type) 11:21:14 Nick: Issue is you don't want to require a conversion function for card numbers, for example. 11:22:26 Steven: My basic grudge is we are nicer to machines than humans. 11:22:49 Erik: Users don't enter in the XML, they do it through controls. 11:22:58 Nick: (example of dateTime control) 11:23:32 John: Implementations should provide convenient means. 11:25:06 Erik: UI for credit card numbers almost always never allow you to enter dashes or spaces. So the lexical space should not have them. But the control can be fancier and allow dashes and spaces. 11:26:22 John: Issue 6 is already accepted. But I think that my action item should say that we are clearer about the lexical space of the data types and replace the older action item. 11:29:19 Steven_ has joined #forms 11:29:36 Sorry Mark, I pressed fn-f4 instead of ctrl-f4 11:29:54 RESOLUTION: We clarify the lexical space of all the XForms data types, and we link to lexical space definitions in 8.1.1. 11:30:14 Action: jboyer to clarify the lexical space of all the XForms data types, and we link to lexical space definitions in 8.1.1. 11:30:20 lunch time 11:30:29 Created ACTION-408 - Clarify the lexical space of all the XForms data types, and we link to lexical space definitions in 8.1.1. [on John Boyer - due 2007-09-20]. 13:10:17 unl has joined #forms 13:10:30 restarting 13:10:36 Topic: Demonstrations 13:10:50 SATEC will be giving a demonstration 13:16:18 klotz has joined #forms 13:16:33 klotz has joined #forms 13:18:58 Charlie has joined #forms 13:18:59 SATEC is doing a demo now 13:24:52 13:26:28 No schema, no namespaces, no scripting, model-driven switch, 13:26:36 docs are multi-screen 13:26:47 ext libs may be inlcuded via plugins 13:27:04 mini host language with architecture similar to ODF. 13:27:15 Core XForms in an xforms tag 13:27:27 UI controls associated with layout elements using ID attrs 13:27:44 DataMovil has some examples as JavaPetStore 13:28:07 Rafa: is going to present the first applicatin 13:28:24 s/applicatin/application 13:29:19 DataMovil supports lots of different mobile devices 13:29:30 Rafa: is trying to project the application 13:30:06 Rafa: We can see the first menu, where we can see what apps are available 13:30:47 john: Are the apps xforms? 13:30:54 Rafa: Yes 13:31:18 DataMovil provides an application mgmt. Each app deployed to the system is an XForm 13:31:19 Rafa: The first window you can chose the category 13:31:50 Rafa: first window is based in Dynamic Expressions 13:32:13 Rafa: Second window, we can see the shopping cart, based in a repeat 13:32:25 Rafa: Also uses insert 1.1 13:33:13 Rafa: We add to the shopping cart two items a cat an a dog 13:33:40 Charlie: cat is really cheap 13:34:28 Jboyer: what the navigation buttons are based in 13:34:47 Rafa: outside of the xforms engine 13:35:53 Rafa: we can see the process speed difference between computer and PDAs 13:36:31 Jboyer: do you use submit? 13:36:48 Rafa: I use a trigger + send action 13:37:09 Rafa: I�m going to show you the app designer 13:37:30 Rafa: Here you can see the editor 13:37:45 Rafa: Select1, groups 13:38:08 Rafa: we can see inline the changes we apply to the xform app 13:38:24 Rafa: here is the source code 13:39:20 Charlie: Can you show an example about the link between the layout or look with the controls 13:39:56 Charlie: It�s interesting xforms controls point to presentation information 13:40:40 Rafa: Switch uses a boolean expression, we don�t use the toogle 13:41:02 Rafa: Here is the look and layout 13:41:45 Rafa:We can download an image and saved locally 13:42:02 Rafa: in order to uses it in the future 13:42:21 Jboyer: Can you show the repeat? 13:42:52 Rafa:I find the repeat 13:43:07 Rafa: Repeat includes also links to layout a look 13:43:24 Jboyer: is more or less css 13:43:47 Jboyer: ... is the layout a kind of flowlayout 13:43:53 layout and look attrs are like css styling to connect xf controls to prsentation 13:44:06 Rafa: it�s relative 13:44:50 Rafa: we have some attributes 13:45:32 Rafa: we have some presentation information implicit 13:46:16 Nick: we use appearence 13:47:38 jboyer: you want to say host language do it in this way 13:48:45 Rafa: you can�t launch to instances of the client 13:49:26 Rafa: We copy or stored the actual state 13:50:06 Rafa: (using session option) and after you can restore the form from that state 13:50:42 Rafa: ... the result of a submission it�s a new document 13:51:14 Rafa: we support a submission history, I mean you can go back the last document 13:52:47 Rafa: ... are going to show you a demo for a project we have right now 13:53:13 Rafa: ... based in the bus tickets machine 13:54:20 Rafa: ... the app I�m going to show you uses a xforms-ready in order to check one mIFare based card 13:54:55 Rafa:... after the card is read 13:55:13 Rafa: ...you can see the card data 13:55:43 Rafa:... next screen shows the pass number, and the busdriver name 13:55:57 Rafa:... number of passengers also 14:00:02 Rafa: End of the presentation 14:00:45 jboyer: you can give some pictures in order to show what devices supports the xforms 14:01:26 Rafa: we have 10 references using this technology, some spanish 14:02:58 maybe : /^\w[-.\w]*\@[-a-b0-9]+(?:\.[-a-b0-9]+)*\.(?:com|edu|biz|org|gov|int|inf 14:02:58 rssagent, scribe? 14:03:04 grep scribe 14:03:10 rrsagent, grep scribe 14:03:10 I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'scribe' 14:03:25 rrsagent, make minutes 14:03:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html Steven_ 14:03:47 Rafael has joined #forms 14:03:55 scribe: ebruchez 14:04:06 topic: Issue 8 14:04:12 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/Model?id=8;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 14:04:38 John: Asks whether we can use IRIs fo rexternal schema locations 14:06:22 http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#anyURI 14:06:33 schema attr is list of xsd:anyURI 14:08:08 RFC gives some guidance in 1.2 a, b, c 14:08:36 s/RFC/RFC 3987/ 14:08:54 http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/ 14:09:02 schema 1.1 redefines anyURI to allow IRIs 14:09:08 but we are not based on schema 1.1 14:09:12 Erik: Schema 1.1 draft now says anyURI includes IRIs 14:10:40 Erik: Schema 1.1, as of the Feb 2006 draft, does not upgrade the namespaces for data types 14:10:50 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt 14:10:50 http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt 14:11:21 1.2.a says: For example, XML 14:11:21 schema [XMLSchema] has an explicit type "anyURI" that includes 14:11:22 IRIs and IRI references. Therefore, IRIs and IRI references can 14:11:22 be in attributes and elements of type "anyURI". 14:15:59 Proposed Resolution: Defer issue 8 to future version of XForms, which may be based on version of schema later than 1.0. XForms 1.1 is based on XML Schema 1.0 second ed., which does not appear to support IRI in xsd:anyURI type 14:17:44 http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/#link-locators 14:19:26 John: Ok so we dot not support IRIs explicitly, but we support anyURI as defined in XML Schema 1.0. We can just respond that. 14:19:45 Proposed Resolution: Defer issue 8 to future version of XForms, which may be based on version of schema later than 1.0. XForms 1.1 is based on XML Schema 1.0 second ed., which does not appear to support all IRIs in the xsd:anyURI type 14:20:25 RESOLUTION: Defer issue 8 to future version of XForms, which may be based on version of schema later than 1.0. XForms 1.1 is based on XML Schema 1.0 second ed., which does not appear to support all IRIs in the xsd:anyURI type 14:21:05 topic: Issue 13 14:21:38 http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/Model?id=13;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1 14:22:11 John: In the last call version of 1.1, we said that @src may come from the host language. Does this mean that IRI support is delegated to the host language? 14:22:55 John: But since then, we reverted to not delegating @src processing to the host language. This is good because the processing of @src was not exactly like we wanted it. 14:23:24 John: So response is that @src is back to XForms, and we follow XML schema 1.0's anyURI. 14:23:49 I have to go now. 14:23:58 Will join you all again tomorrow morning. 14:24:04 Proposed Resolution: Answer issue 13 as follows: "Due to other last call comments, src was moved from host language control to XForms, where it is governed by rules of xsd:anyURI from schema 1.0" 14:24:04 Have a good evening. 14:24:09 thx 14:24:38 what about other places, submission resource for example? 14:25:14 leigh, all these are xsd:anyURI too 14:25:35 and they are not governed by the host language 14:25:40 not being able to hear the discussion I can't tell whether I agree with the opinions, but that's a fact I agree with. 14:25:43 throughout our spec, it's xsd:anyURI, but the LC comment asks specifically about this case because it was the only case that involved host lang control 14:26:13 so do we believe that we're prohibited from IRI support in xsd:anyURI until XML Schema 1.1? I don't believe that. 14:26:17 any objections to above proposed resolution? 14:26:34 any impl that runs xforms schema would choke 14:26:51