IRC log of forms on 2007-09-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:29:42 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #forms
07:29:42 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-irc
07:29:50 [Steven]
rrsagent, make log public
07:30:15 [Steven]
Meeting: Forms WG FtF, Madrid Spain, Day 2 of 3
07:30:22 [Steven]
Chair: John
07:31:03 [Steven]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Sep/0041
07:31:22 [Charlie]
Charlie has joined #forms
07:31:57 [Steven]
Present: John, Uli, Charlie, Steven, Erik, Nick, Rafael_of_the_two_laptops, Rogelio
07:32:17 [John_Boyer]
John_Boyer has joined #forms
07:32:27 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
07:32:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html Steven
07:32:41 [Steven]
Regrets: Lars, MarkS
07:32:57 [Steven]
Regrets+Kenneth
07:32:59 [Roger]
Roger has joined #forms
07:33:57 [unl]
unl has joined #forms
07:35:23 [unl]
unl has joined #forms
07:35:30 [Steven]
s/0041/0050/
07:36:07 [Steven]
Steven has changed the topic to: Forms FtF, Madrid Spain, Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2007Sep/0050
07:36:14 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
07:36:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html Steven
07:37:24 [Steven]
-> http://www.w3.org/2007/09/12-forms-minutes.html Day 1
07:37:37 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
07:37:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html Steven
07:39:07 [Steven]
Scribe: Steven
07:40:01 [Steven]
Topic: XPath function issues
07:40:12 [Steven]
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 [Steven]
Issue 147
07:41:48 [Steven]
[on] yes
07:42:10 [markbirbeck]
[up] thanks
07:43:34 [Nick]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#func-seconds-from-dateTime
07:43:34 [ebruchez]
ebruchez has joined #forms
07:43:43 [Steven]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#func-seconds-from-dateTime
07:44:27 [Steven]
John: THis is a long-standing xforms function
07:44:32 [Steven]
s/TH/Th/
07:44:52 [Steven]
John: So we should say the same thing, that we will look into this when we move to XPath 2.0
07:45:24 [Nick]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
07:45:30 [Steven]
Charlie: There are both negative and positive leap seconds, added pretty much at random
07:45:37 [Steven]
... on average once every 18 months
07:45:54 [Steven]
John: We shouldn't support them, too hard
07:46:29 [Nick]
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/util/Date.html
07:47:13 [Rafael]
Rafael has joined #forms
07:52:18 [Steven]
[General agreement]
07:53:38 [Steven]
Charlie: What if you implement with a Java that does support leap seconds?
07:53:49 [Steven]
Steven: Then it is an incorrect implementation
07:54:13 [Steven]
RESOLUTION: No name change, no leap seconds for seconds-from-DateTime
07:54:31 [Steven]
John: And the same again for seconds-to-DateTime
07:54:59 [Steven]
ACTION: jboyer to implement seconds-to/from-dateTime changes
07:55:15 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-402 - Implement seconds-to/from-dateTime changes [on John Boyer - due 2007-09-20].
07:56:08 [Steven]
Topic: Issues with date-time functions
07:56:24 [Steven]
Issue 12
07:56:26 [Steven]
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 [Steven]
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2006/xforms-for-html-authors-part2.html
08:06:26 [Rafael]
Rafael has joined #forms
08:07:34 [Steven]
[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 [Steven]
Erik: There are three scenarios
08:21:23 [Steven]
... local time with tz info
08:21:33 [Steven]
... local time without tz
08:21:35 [Steven]
... utc
08:22:04 [Steven]
John: Some of us thought that now always returns a UTC time
08:22:35 [Steven]
... and some thought it returned the locl time with tz info
08:22:43 [Steven]
... there is a use case for both
08:23:03 [Steven]
Steven: You can calculate the UTC from the local+tz, but not the other way round
08:24:40 [Steven]
John: This is a good instance of where an example would have made everything clearer
08:26:11 [Steven]
http://books.xmlschemata.org/relaxng/ch19-77049.html
08:26:56 [Rafa]
Rafa has joined #forms
08:27:16 [Steven]
Steven: You'll see that xsd:datetime always returns the timezone info as +/- hh:mm
08:28:39 [unl]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime
08:28:55 [unl]
chapter 3.2.7.2 Canonical representation
08:36:12 [markbirbeck]
How about now() returns the local time...
08:36:23 [markbirbeck]
....now(0) returns UTC time.
08:36:36 [markbirbeck]
...now(-8) returns time 8 hours behind UTC...
08:36:39 [markbirbeck]
...and so on.
08:37:08 [markbirbeck]
Then we don't have to muck around normalising strings, and stuff. It's a real pain, and usually requires script. :)
08:44:30 [John_Boyer]
This is not too different from saying now() returns UTC and local-dateTime() returns the other stuff
08:45:04 [markbirbeck]
I've just checked our implementation and we return the *time* normalised to UTC, I'm afraid.
08:45:36 [markbirbeck]
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 [John_Boyer]
Nick: so 40 minutes off an hour would be now(-7.666666666...a)
08:45:52 [Steven]
Well, I'm checking implementations now
08:45:55 [John_Boyer]
s/...a/...
08:46:03 [Steven]
I haven't found one that disagrees yet
08:47:16 [markbirbeck]
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 [markbirbeck]
In other words, the time has been normalised to UTC, not just the time-zone.
08:54:14 [Steven]
Erik: There are two options: change now, or leave now and add a new function
08:54:50 [Steven]
John: If we leave now, we still have to have a parameter to say what we want
08:55:38 [Steven]
Steven: XSmiles, Novell and Mozilla use the +02:00 form
08:56:14 [Steven]
John: Proposals 1) Now always returns Z
08:56:30 [Steven]
... and use localDateTime
08:56:45 [Steven]
2) add param to now(), remove localDateTime
08:57:05 [markbirbeck]
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 [Steven]
3) Add param to now(), make default be local and remove localDateTime
08:58:03 [Steven]
Steven: 4) now() produces tz version, and add a function utc()
09:00:36 [Steven]
John: 5) now() returns local + tz and no other functions
09:00:47 [John_Boyer]
Just ran out of time for this set of issues
09:02:44 [Nick]
a string value in the canonical XML Schema xsd:dateTime format.
09:02:45 [John_Boyer]
Mark, I think you also missed the part of the discussion about "canonical" representation
09:02:50 [Steven]
Mark: I think our (formsPlayer) reading of changing the time is the right one
09:02:50 [John_Boyer]
which further supports what you just said
09:02:55 [Charlie]
in schema
09:03:09 [Nick]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime-lexical-representation
09:03:34 [Nick]
--> you can only return zulu time
09:04:38 [unl]
spec says _canonical_ representation http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime-canonical-representation
09:04:44 [ebruchez]
I agree 100% with Mark
09:05:05 [John_Boyer]
me too
09:11:16 [Nick]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime-canonical-representation
09:15:44 [Steven]
[John does a straw poll around the room about which of the solutions we should adopt]
09:15:58 [John_Boyer]
Mark, which of the 5 above best reflects you
09:16:06 [Steven]
Erik: I don't think that is good, but it agrees with what XForms 1.0 says
09:16:25 [Steven]
Steven: Which I think is wrong, since the *intention* was the localtime+tz version
09:16:39 [Steven]
... (and which several implementations, but not all, do)
09:17:26 [Steven]
Mark: I think now() returning what Steven wants is more useful
09:17:39 [Steven]
... but I don't like the idea of the spec changing to reflect that
09:18:01 [Steven]
... I think solution 2) above is best
09:18:43 [John_Boyer]
1) was actually clarify now() as well
09:18:45 [Steven]
John: Can people live with solution 1)
09:19:09 [Steven]
Uli: I can live with 1)
09:19:19 [markbirbeck]
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]
Steven: What can I say?
09:19:30 [John_Boyer]
yes?
09:20:02 [John_Boyer]
Mark, can you live with #1
09:20:33 [John_Boyer]
which we already have
09:21:04 [John_Boyer]
Steven's now() is the 1.1 LC spec's local-dateTime()
09:21:23 [Steven]
Erik: I think that the real right way is to to go the XPath 2.0 route
09:21:54 [Steven]
Steven: I think solution 1 is the best of a bad bunch
09:22:27 [John_Boyer]
Proposed Resolution: Clarify that now() returns Z time only and add examples, keep local-dateTime()
09:22:31 [Steven]
Mark: THe reason that the param version is handy is for doing timezone calculations
09:22:35 [Steven]
s/TH/Th/
09:24:27 [John_Boyer]
RESOLUTION: Clarify that now() returns Z time only and add examples, keep local-dateTime() and add examples that juxtapose to now()
09:24:45 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
09:24:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html Steven
09:25:30 [John_Boyer]
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 [trackbot-ng]
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 [Steven]
RESOLUTION: Clarify that now() returns Z time only and add examples, keep local-dateTime() and add examples that juxtapose to now()
09:29:02 [markbirbeck]
are you having a break?
09:31:18 [John_Boyer]
yes
09:33:00 [Nick]
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2007/
09:36:18 [John_Boyer]
Action: John to address issue 65
09:36:18 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - John
09:36:19 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jkugelma, jboyer)
09:39:12 [unl]
unl has joined #forms
09:40:38 [ebruchez]
back from the break
09:41:02 [ebruchez]
scribe ebruchez
09:41:10 [ebruchez]
back from the breakt then
09:41:34 [ebruchez]
scribe: ebruchez
09:42:46 [ebruchez]
topic: Issue 12
09:42:53 [John_Boyer]
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 [ebruchez]
John: I think that resolution is XForms processor get tz info in an implementation-specific way
09:44:34 [ebruchez]
Charlie: Right
09:46:16 [John_Boyer]
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 [ebruchez]
John: Anybody objects?
09:47:01 [John_Boyer]
s/detail/defined
09:47:02 [ebruchez]
Charlie: Should be "implementation-defined".
09:47:20 [John_Boyer]
s/defined/specific
09:48:23 [Steven]
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 [ebruchez]
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 [ebruchez]
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 [ebruchez]
topic: Issue 11
09:51:11 [John_Boyer]
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 [ebruchez]
John: Felix is asking us to decide what we just decided earlier.
09:54:19 [ebruchez]
Charlie: What if there is no tz info available?
09:54:38 [wellsk]
wellsk has joined #forms
09:54:50 [ebruchez]
Hi Keith
09:54:54 [wellsk]
Hi
09:55:31 [ebruchez]
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 [ebruchez]
Erik: I think XPath 2.0 says there is always tz information in the context.
09:56:45 [ebruchez]
John: He is asking we require UTC when there is no tz info.
09:56:53 [ebruchez]
Erik: What does it mean to be not available?
09:57:16 [ebruchez]
John: My cell phone doesn't have tz nfo.
09:57:21 [ebruchez]
s/nfo/info
09:58:22 [ebruchez]
John: He is just saying that he thinks the result may not have a Z in the end.
09:58:40 [ebruchez]
Erik: The text is already there.
09:59:13 [John_Boyer]
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 [ebruchez]
Erik: Not sure I understand this.
10:01:27 [John_Boyer]
When a device has time of 12:00 but no tz info, the result is 12:00Z
10:01:40 [John_Boyer]
So, UTC is the default when no tz info available
10:01:49 [John_Boyer]
Need Z to be in canonical form
10:02:01 [ebruchez]
Erik: Ok get it.
10:02:39 [ebruchez]
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 [ebruchez]
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 [trackbot-ng]
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 [ebruchez]
topic: Issue 63
10:04:55 [John_Boyer]
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 [ebruchez]
Erik: Can't you use a type instead?
10:06:17 [ebruchez]
Steven: No you need to do a calculation.
10:06:58 [John_Boyer]
Proposed Resolution: Accept 63. Change ID-card-number to card-number and change luhn() to card-number()
10:08:11 [markbirbeck]
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 [ebruchez]
Nick: What about XPath 2.0, won't you be able to use "castable as"?
10:09:30 [ebruchez]
Erik: This would have to be an extension type over XPath 2.0. Not sure how that will work.
10:10:54 [John_Boyer]
Proposed Resolution: Accept 63. Change ID-card-number to card-number and change luhn() to is-card-number()
10:11:03 [ebruchez]
John: So there can't be a conflict with XPath 2.0, right?
10:11:07 [ebruchez]
Erik: I don't think os.
10:11:44 [Charlie]
s/os/so
10:12:18 [John_Boyer]
RESOLUTION: Accept 63. Change ID-card-number to card-number and change luhn() to is-card-number()
10:12:45 [ebruchez]
ACTION: jboyer to change ID-card-number to card-number and change luhn() to is-card-number()
10:12:55 [trackbot-ng]
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 [ebruchez]
ACTION: nick to change XForms schema to change ID-card-number to card-number
10:13:56 [trackbot-ng]
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 [ebruchez]
topic: Issue 6
10:14:36 [ebruchez]
s/Issue 6/Issues 6 and 10
10:15:28 [unl]
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 [unl]
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 [ebruchez]
John: Charlie asked to clarify lexical vs. value space.
10:16:25 [John_Boyer]
28<http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/Types?user=guest;selectid=6;statetype=-1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1> rnhttp://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#defn-validation-rules
10:16:33 [John_Boyer]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#defn-validation-rules
10:18:38 [ebruchez]
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 [Steven]
or "0100"
10:20:33 [ebruchez]
Charlie: What about what's displayed on the screen for the user?
10:20:45 [ebruchez]
John: It's a display value. Different from lexical value.
10:21:27 [ebruchez]
John: Constraints are only on value and lexical space.
10:24:52 [ebruchez]
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 [ebruchez]
Erik: Pretty clear that patterns apply to the lexical space.
10:26:07 [ebruchez]
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 [ebruchez]
John: Question is do you need i18n characters in the lexical space.
10:27:22 [ebruchez]
Nick: What if you have "e acute"?
10:27:55 [ebruchez]
John: The XML contains stuff in the lexical space.
10:28:09 [ebruchez]
Nick: In my example, you won't put "e acute" char in the instance.
10:29:15 [ebruchez]
Nick: What about putting a constraint?
10:30:52 [ebruchez]
Steven: It's the task of the emailing app to convert.
10:31:24 [ebruchez]
Steven: Who does the conversion, the XForms control, or the email sending app.
10:32:06 [ebruchez]
Charlie: We understand the distinction, but now we need to define the lexical space.
10:32:25 [Steven]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punycode
10:33:44 [ebruchez]
Erik: We are not the first ones to do this, right?
10:34:18 [ebruchez]
John: Currently, our pattern implies that the UI does the conversion.
10:35:20 [ebruchez]
John: If we change that, then how do we convert this for the mailto: protocol?
10:37:35 [ebruchez]
Erik: What about HTML forms, how do they use it?
10:38:17 [ebruchez]
Erik: Also see human-readable resource identifiers, idea is to convert from human-readable representation.
10:38:37 [ebruchez]
John: I think we should defer to a future representation.
10:38:48 [ebruchez]
s/representation/version of XForms
10:40:21 [ebruchez]
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 [ebruchez]
John: We could define two different types to solve the issue of compatibility, e.g. email-rfc2822
10:41:28 [ebruchez]
Nick: But it's not author-friendly.
10:41:41 [ebruchez]
Steven: What's the problem?
10:43:23 [John_Boyer]
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt
10:45:50 [Steven]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punycode
10:45:56 [Steven]
ignore that
10:46:27 [Steven]
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-07.txt
10:46:30 [Steven]
is what I meant
10:47:15 [ebruchez]
John: But we need to get XForms 1.1 out.
10:48:41 [ebruchez]
Uli: It would be ok for me to take the email type out.
10:50:35 [ebruchez]
John: We could just say that the email type is a string without constraints.
10:51:19 [ebruchez]
John: But when do we care about validation? Server-side may not have xforms:email.
10:52:12 [ebruchez]
Erik: But when we lose over half of the email feature.
10:52:30 [ebruchez]
Steven: Some site validate emails wrong. The idea here was to get validation done right.
10:54:02 [ebruchez]
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 [Steven]
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4952.txt
10:54:30 [ebruchez]
Steven: RFC for i18n email not ready yet.
10:55:08 [Nick]
o|mil|net|name|museum|coop|aero|[a-z][a-z])\b/ ?
10:55:14 [Nick]
maybe : o|mil|net|name|museum|coop|aero|[a-z][a-z])\b/ ?
10:56:45 [ebruchez]
See also http://www.w3.org/2003/Talks/IETF58mailto/
11:05:57 [ebruchez]
Steven: It doesn't seem that we have a spec we can use as inspiration.
11:06:43 [John_Boyer]
RESOLUTION: Defer issue 10 to future xforms where i18mail can be defined and keep current pattern definition of xforms email.
11:09:26 [John_Boyer]
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 [trackbot-ng]
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 [John_Boyer]
Topic: Issue 6
11:09:34 [John_Boyer]
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 [Steven]
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 [ebruchez]
John: Issue is we don't explicitly define the lexical space vs. value space.
11:12:18 [ebruchez]
John: In schema, for each type, you have value space, lexical space, and canonical version. We don't do that.
11:13:21 [ebruchez]
John: See 5.2.2, which also seems to confuse lexical vs. value space.
11:14:34 [ebruchez]
Steven: Why do we care about lexical again?
11:14:44 [ebruchez]
John: Because that's what validation will look at.
11:15:19 [ebruchez]
John: With the XForms types, we really care more about the lexical space.
11:18:29 [ebruchez]
Steven: They why do we care about value space?
11:18:35 [ebruchez]
John: My point.
11:20:48 [ebruchez]
Steven: (discussing value and lexical space for boolean type)
11:21:14 [ebruchez]
Nick: Issue is you don't want to require a conversion function for card numbers, for example.
11:22:26 [ebruchez]
Steven: My basic grudge is we are nicer to machines than humans.
11:22:49 [ebruchez]
Erik: Users don't enter in the XML, they do it through controls.
11:22:58 [ebruchez]
Nick: (example of dateTime control)
11:23:32 [ebruchez]
John: Implementations should provide convenient means.
11:25:06 [ebruchez]
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 [ebruchez]
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_]
Steven_ has joined #forms
11:29:36 [Steven_]
Sorry Mark, I pressed fn-f4 instead of ctrl-f4
11:29:54 [ebruchez]
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 [John_Boyer]
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 [John_Boyer]
lunch time
11:30:29 [trackbot-ng]
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]
unl has joined #forms
13:10:30 [John_Boyer]
restarting
13:10:36 [John_Boyer]
Topic: Demonstrations
13:10:50 [John_Boyer]
SATEC will be giving a demonstration
13:16:18 [klotz]
klotz has joined #forms
13:16:33 [klotz]
klotz has joined #forms
13:18:58 [Charlie]
Charlie has joined #forms
13:18:59 [John_Boyer]
SATEC is doing a demo now
13:24:52 [Steven_]
<datamovil><xforms/><lookblock/><layoutblock/><mediablock/></datamovil>
13:26:28 [Steven_]
No schema, no namespaces, no scripting, model-driven switch,
13:26:36 [Steven_]
docs are multi-screen
13:26:47 [Steven_]
ext libs may be inlcuded via plugins
13:27:04 [John_Boyer]
mini host language with architecture similar to ODF.
13:27:15 [John_Boyer]
Core XForms in an xforms tag
13:27:27 [John_Boyer]
UI controls associated with layout elements using ID attrs
13:27:44 [Roger]
DataMovil has some examples as JavaPetStore
13:28:07 [Roger]
Rafa: is going to present the first applicatin
13:28:24 [Roger]
s/applicatin/application
13:29:19 [John_Boyer]
DataMovil supports lots of different mobile devices
13:29:30 [Roger]
Rafa: is trying to project the application
13:30:06 [Roger]
Rafa: We can see the first menu, where we can see what apps are available
13:30:47 [Roger]
john: Are the apps xforms?
13:30:54 [Roger]
Rafa: Yes
13:31:18 [John_Boyer]
DataMovil provides an application mgmt. Each app deployed to the system is an XForm
13:31:19 [Roger]
Rafa: The first window you can chose the category
13:31:50 [Roger]
Rafa: first window is based in Dynamic Expressions
13:32:13 [Roger]
Rafa: Second window, we can see the shopping cart, based in a repeat
13:32:25 [Roger]
Rafa: Also uses insert 1.1
13:33:13 [Roger]
Rafa: We add to the shopping cart two items a cat an a dog
13:33:40 [Roger]
Charlie: cat is really cheap
13:34:28 [Roger]
Jboyer: what the navigation buttons are based in
13:34:47 [Roger]
Rafa: outside of the xforms engine
13:35:53 [Roger]
Rafa: we can see the process speed difference between computer and PDAs
13:36:31 [Roger]
Jboyer: do you use submit?
13:36:48 [Roger]
Rafa: I use a trigger + send action
13:37:09 [Roger]
Rafa: Iīm going to show you the app designer
13:37:30 [Roger]
Rafa: Here you can see the editor
13:37:45 [Roger]
Rafa: Select1, groups
13:38:08 [Roger]
Rafa: we can see inline the changes we apply to the xform app
13:38:24 [Roger]
Rafa: here is the source code
13:39:20 [Roger]
Charlie: Can you show an example about the link between the layout or look with the controls
13:39:56 [Roger]
Charlie: Itīs interesting xforms controls point to presentation information
13:40:40 [Roger]
Rafa: Switch uses a boolean expression, we donīt use the toogle
13:41:02 [Roger]
Rafa: Here is the look and layout
13:41:45 [Roger]
Rafa:We can download an image and saved locally
13:42:02 [Roger]
Rafa: in order to uses it in the future
13:42:21 [Roger]
Jboyer: Can you show the repeat?
13:42:52 [Roger]
Rafa:I find the repeat
13:43:07 [Roger]
Rafa: Repeat includes also links to layout a look
13:43:24 [Roger]
Jboyer: is more or less css
13:43:47 [Roger]
Jboyer: ... is the layout a kind of flowlayout
13:43:53 [John_Boyer]
layout and look attrs are like css styling to connect xf controls to prsentation
13:44:06 [Roger]
Rafa: itīs relative
13:44:50 [Roger]
Rafa: we have some attributes
13:45:32 [Roger]
Rafa: we have some presentation information implicit
13:46:16 [Roger]
Nick: we use appearence
13:47:38 [Roger]
jboyer: you want to say host language do it in this way
13:48:45 [Roger]
Rafa: you canīt launch to instances of the client
13:49:26 [Roger]
Rafa: We copy or stored the actual state
13:50:06 [Roger]
Rafa: (using session option) and after you can restore the form from that state
13:50:42 [Roger]
Rafa: ... the result of a submission itīs a new document
13:51:14 [Roger]
Rafa: we support a submission history, I mean you can go back the last document
13:52:47 [Roger]
Rafa: ... are going to show you a demo for a project we have right now
13:53:13 [Roger]
Rafa: ... based in the bus tickets machine
13:54:20 [Roger]
Rafa: ... the app Iīm going to show you uses a xforms-ready in order to check one mIFare based card
13:54:55 [Roger]
Rafa:... after the card is read
13:55:13 [Roger]
Rafa: ...you can see the card data
13:55:43 [Roger]
Rafa:... next screen shows the pass number, and the busdriver name
13:55:57 [Roger]
Rafa:... number of passengers also
14:00:02 [Roger]
Rafa: End of the presentation
14:00:45 [Roger]
jboyer: you can give some pictures in order to show what devices supports the xforms
14:01:26 [Roger]
Rafa: we have 10 references using this technology, some spanish
14:02:58 [Nick]
maybe : /^\w[-.\w]*\@[-a-b0-9]+(?:\.[-a-b0-9]+)*\.(?:com|edu|biz|org|gov|int|inf
14:02:58 [Nick]
rssagent, scribe?
14:03:04 [Steven_]
grep scribe
14:03:10 [Steven_]
rrsagent, grep scribe
14:03:10 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'scribe'
14:03:25 [Steven_]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:03:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html Steven_
14:03:47 [Rafael]
Rafael has joined #forms
14:03:55 [ebruchez]
scribe: ebruchez
14:04:06 [ebruchez]
topic: Issue 8
14:04:12 [John_Boyer]
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 [ebruchez]
John: Asks whether we can use IRIs fo rexternal schema locations
14:06:22 [Steven_]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#anyURI
14:06:33 [John_Boyer]
schema attr is list of xsd:anyURI
14:08:08 [klotz]
RFC gives some guidance in 1.2 a, b, c
14:08:36 [klotz]
s/RFC/RFC 3987/
14:08:54 [ebruchez]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/
14:09:02 [John_Boyer]
schema 1.1 redefines anyURI to allow IRIs
14:09:08 [John_Boyer]
but we are not based on schema 1.1
14:09:12 [ebruchez]
Erik: Schema 1.1 draft now says anyURI includes IRIs
14:10:40 [ebruchez]
Erik: Schema 1.1, as of the Feb 2006 draft, does not upgrade the namespaces for data types
14:10:50 [ebruchez]
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt
14:10:50 [unl]
http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt
14:11:21 [unl]
1.2.a says: For example, XML
14:11:21 [unl]
schema [XMLSchema] has an explicit type "anyURI" that includes
14:11:22 [unl]
IRIs and IRI references. Therefore, IRIs and IRI references can
14:11:22 [unl]
be in attributes and elements of type "anyURI".
14:15:59 [John_Boyer]
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 [ebruchez]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/#link-locators
14:19:26 [ebruchez]
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 [John_Boyer]
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 [John_Boyer]
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 [ebruchez]
topic: Issue 13
14:21:38 [John_Boyer]
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 [ebruchez]
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 [ebruchez]
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 [ebruchez]
John: So response is that @src is back to XForms, and we follow XML schema 1.0's anyURI.
14:23:49 [markbirbeck]
I have to go now.
14:23:58 [markbirbeck]
Will join you all again tomorrow morning.
14:24:04 [John_Boyer]
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 [markbirbeck]
Have a good evening.
14:24:09 [John_Boyer]
thx
14:24:38 [klotz]
what about other places, submission resource for example?
14:25:14 [unl]
leigh, all these are xsd:anyURI too
14:25:35 [unl]
and they are not governed by the host language
14:25:40 [klotz]
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 [John_Boyer]
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 [klotz]
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 [John_Boyer]
any objections to above proposed resolution?
14:26:34 [John_Boyer]
any impl that runs xforms schema would choke
14:26:51 [John_Boyer]
if IRI used chars not in lex space of anyURI
14:27:04 [klotz]
what is the lexical space of anyuri?
14:27:09 [klotz]
link...
14:27:17 [John_Boyer]
above
14:27:22 [John_Boyer]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:27:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html John_Boyer
14:27:53 [klotz]
the lexical space is anything that can be urlencoded according to xlink?
14:28:12 [unl]
leigh, it's unlear. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#anyURI says: his means that a wide range of internationalized resource identifiers can be specified when an anyURI is called for, and still be understood as URIs per [RFC 2396], as amended by [RFC 2732], where appropriate to identify resources.
14:28:35 [unl]
'a wide range' is not all :-(
14:28:37 [klotz]
3.2.17.1 gives a pretty clear definition.
14:29:01 [ebruchez]
the question is whether that is equivalent to what is in the IRI spec
14:29:22 [ebruchez]
meaning exactly equivalent
14:29:29 [klotz]
ah
14:30:25 [klotz]
there's no reason we can't use 3987 to encode; xml schema merely uses xlink to specify the lexical space, not the processing model.
14:32:02 [John_Boyer]
yes there is
14:32:09 [John_Boyer]
schema 1.0 does not ref 3987
14:32:13 [John_Boyer]
schema 1.1 does
14:32:17 [John_Boyer]
but 1.1 is a WD
14:32:21 [John_Boyer]
1.5 years old too
14:32:21 [unl]
and http://www.w3.org/International/O-URL-and-ident.html says: Various document formats already use IRIs:
14:32:21 [unl]
* In XML 1.0, system identifiers are IRIs (see also erratum E26)
14:32:22 [unl]
* In XLink , the href attribute is an IRI
14:32:22 [unl]
* XML Schema provides the anyURI datatype for IRIs
14:33:01 [John_Boyer]
not a recommendatoin
14:33:29 [John_Boyer]
opinion of i18n team about what *should* be
14:33:33 [John_Boyer]
in 2003
14:34:49 [John_Boyer]
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
14:35:13 [John_Boyer]
oops wrong one
14:35:27 [John_Boyer]
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"
14:35:32 [John_Boyer]
objections?
14:36:10 [klotz]
none other than the practical point that all serious implementations will support IRI's today regardless of what we say
14:36:55 [John_Boyer]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/#link-locators
14:37:03 [John_Boyer]
Well, most IRIs are supported by this
14:37:25 [John_Boyer]
Most serious design tools would have a problem with IRIs that violate the lex space
14:37:48 [John_Boyer]
Leigh, can you live with above proposed resolution?
14:38:10 [klotz]
yes, i said no objections other than to point out it's unlikely to have any effect on implementations.
14:38:50 [John_Boyer]
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"
14:39:12 [ebruchez]
topic: Topic 9
14:39:18 [John_Boyer]
http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/Misc?id=9;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
14:39:49 [rafa]
rafa has joined #forms
14:41:05 [ebruchez]
Erik: Nobody is really using XML 1.1, and it seems like it's a lot of work to ensure we support XML 1.1 correctly for XForms 1.1.
14:41:13 [ebruchez]
John: Future feature.
14:41:55 [ebruchez]
John: Does XPath 2.0 support XML 1.1?
14:42:11 [ebruchez]
Erik: Yes, XPath 2.0 supports XML 1.0 or 1.1.
14:43:28 [John_Boyer]
Proposed Resolution: Defer issue 9. In XForms 2.0 we plan to support XPath 2.0 , and could consider supporting XML 1.1 at that time.
14:49:50 [John_Boyer]
RESOLUTION: Defer issue 9. In XForms 2.0 we plan to support XPath 2.0 , and could consider supporting XML 1.1 at that time.
14:50:27 [ebruchez]
topic: Issue 38
14:50:27 [John_Boyer]
http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/Misc?id=38;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
14:57:08 [ebruchez]
Erik: (explains what HRRIs are about)
14:59:33 [ebruchez]
John: So Erik how would you like us to deal with this now?
14:59:51 [ebruchez]
Erik: It's not really an LC issue, we should just consider this for a later spec.
15:00:27 [klotz]
BTW link on Norm's page to IETF draft is broken
15:00:39 [John_Boyer]
Yes, change the 00 at the end to 01
15:00:43 [John_Boyer]
the 00 version got expired
15:00:48 [John_Boyer]
the new one is good till Nov. 2007
15:00:53 [klotz]
TNX
15:02:21 [ebruchez]
Nick: But then our XForms schema will be harder to write since anyURI doesn't include HHRIs.
15:02:35 [ebruchez]
s/HHRI/HRRI
15:02:55 [ebruchez]
John: We are not saying we intend to support HRRI, but we may, so we should defer, not reject.
15:03:19 [ebruchez]
Erik: Author convenience IMO primes over the convenience of the XForms schema.
15:04:00 [John_Boyer]
Proposed Resolution: Defer 38 to future XForms, which may consider supporting HRRIs after IRI support is added.
15:04:27 [klotz]
+1
15:04:30 [John_Boyer]
RESOLUTION: Defer 38 to future XForms, which may consider supporting HRRIs after IRI support is added.
15:11:10 [Steven_]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:11:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html Steven_
15:14:12 [klotz]
are we on nillable yet?
15:18:09 [unl]
unl has joined #forms
15:18:10 [ebruchez]
John: What about we skip to the MIP questions?
15:18:17 [ebruchez]
topic: Issue 29
15:18:30 [Rafael]
Rafael has joined #forms
15:18:32 [John_Boyer]
http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/Events?id=29;user=guest;statetype=1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
15:18:45 [ebruchez]
John: I think we should defer
15:19:07 [ebruchez]
John: There is what the MIP events do now, and what we would like them to do.
15:20:08 [ebruchez]
John: Maybe we need other events. These come from the model. Not sure we can fix this from the model.
15:20:37 [ebruchez]
Nick: You only need to send them if there are listeners.
15:23:17 [ebruchez]
Erik: (explains again all the issues with MIP events)
15:25:41 [ebruchez]
Uli: Doesn't see a problem.
15:26:50 [ebruchez]
John: Repeat is an issue: repeat may be entirely repeated.
15:27:00 [ebruchez]
s/repeated/replaced
15:28:41 [ebruchez]
John: Sure, we have an architecture flaw.
15:29:23 [unl]
Erik, I do see problems, but I don't conclude that MIP events are broken or even useless.
15:29:35 [ebruchez]
John: You can also have a binding changes and the control values hasn't changed.
15:30:01 [ebruchez]
John: (explains use cases)
15:30:42 [Steven]
skype crashed Leigh; just a mo'
15:30:45 [ebruchez]
John: One use case that works is showing an ephemeral alert when a control becomes invalid.
15:33:48 [ebruchez]
Nick: Another use case is value change sending submission w/ instance replacement.
15:34:38 [ebruchez]
Charlie: What John says is that you need other events.
15:34:54 [ebruchez]
Nick: Then I don't see the use for these events.
15:35:00 [ebruchez]
Erik: Exactly my point.
15:36:09 [ebruchez]
John: We had a use case with a list of 1500 counties. Single list is too large, so you use dependent lists, one with state, the other one with counties.
15:38:45 [ebruchez]
Nick: (elaborates on that)
15:41:19 [ebruchez]
Uli: For instance replacement, we keep old MIP values.
15:41:31 [ebruchez]
Erik: This is similar to my proposal of doing everything from the control's perspective.
15:42:48 [ebruchez]
Charlie: I think we need both model and UI events.
15:43:05 [ebruchez]
Erik: If we have UI-centric events, I don't see why you need model-centric events.
15:44:10 [ebruchez]
Nick: We may need a rebinding/ rewiring event as well.
15:45:17 [ebruchez]
John: (showing demo of interest rate form)
15:46:19 [ebruchez]
Erik: Sure the events are sometimes useful, but they don't always work.
15:46:23 [ebruchez]
John: I agree.
15:46:46 [ebruchez]
Nick: For validity, the event should always be reliably dispatched.
15:48:59 [ebruchez]
John: I am proposing that this is a necessary XForms 1.2 update. But we need a fundamentally different architecture.
15:50:20 [ebruchez]
Charlie: Doesn't a rebind event solve this?
15:51:08 [ebruchez]
Uli: In Chiba, we don't care about rebindings, controls just keep their state and we dispatch appropriately.
15:53:08 [ebruchez]
John: I would like to see the the UI events proposed, and then the question asked the WG whether there are use cases where the current MIP events are needed. Then we can deprecate the curent MIP events in XForms 1.2, and remove them in XForms 2.0.
15:54:01 [ebruchez]
John: It sounds like the architecture of the current MIP events is flawed, but maybe there are still use cases for the current MIP events.
15:54:55 [ebruchez]
John: XForms 1.2 is about easier form authoring, so this could fit.
15:55:17 [ebruchez]
Charlie: I would like to see an event system to refresh controls then. It would encourage the separation between model and view.
15:56:49 [ebruchez]
John: xforms-refresh could in the end be just a notification event.
15:58:39 [ebruchez]
John, Uli: (agree that all this would be good)
15:58:57 [ebruchez]
Uli: Important problem is that the controls have to keep the state.
15:59:32 [ebruchez]
Nick: Any implementation where controls don't keep the state?
15:59:45 [ebruchez]
John: They keep the state, but this doesn't happen through events.
16:01:24 [John_Boyer]
Proposed Resolution: Defer changes to MIP events for now because we really need a control-based design for events in a future version of XFOrms.
16:01:31 [John_Boyer]
s/XFOrms/XForms
16:03:16 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:03:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html Steven
16:03:39 [John_Boyer]
Proposed Resolution: Defer changes to MIP events for now because we need a broader based redesign of events for controls and possibly also for model.
16:03:40 [klotz]
so MIP events still don't get sent on startup?
16:04:31 [John_Boyer]
that's the proposal, yes
16:04:56 [klotz]
ok, sounds ok with me. it's not what i want but it's what we're doing now and we have a plan to re-examine the whole thing later when inconsistencies can be resolved.
16:04:59 [ebruchez]
We try not to make further changesto MIP events until the new redesign is done.
16:05:09 [klotz]
+1
16:05:17 [ebruchez]
s/changesto/changes to
16:05:33 [John_Boyer]
RESOLUTION: Defer changes to MIP events for now because we need a broader based redesign of events for controls and possibly also for model.
16:07:50 [Steven]
s/Resolution: Respond to issue 12/RESOLUTION: Respond to issue 12/
16:08:45 [ebruchez]
topic: Issue 50
16:09:25 [ebruchez]
Erik: Same topic, and I would prefer deferring to XForms 1.2 rather than fixing it wrong.
16:09:52 [Steven]
s/topic: Issue 50//
16:10:02 [ebruchez]
RESOLUTION: Defer changes to MIP events for now because we need a broader based redesign of events for controls and possibly also for model.
16:10:29 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:10:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html Steven
16:11:35 [ebruchez]
topic: Issue 50
16:11:43 [ebruchez]
John: See resolution above.
16:12:28 [ebruchez]
topic: Issue 176
16:12:40 [John_Boyer]
http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues/MIPs?id=176;user=guest;selectid=176;statetype=-1;upostype=-1;changetype=-1;restype=-1
16:14:14 [ebruchez]
John: There are some notes in the comments there. My idea is that properties are usually consumed by form controls.
16:15:12 [ebruchez]
John: Is a non-relevant node changeable?
16:15:22 [ebruchez]
Nick: For me, relevant and readonly are different.
16:15:44 [ebruchez]
Nick: The spec says something for readonly, not for relevant.
16:15:49 [klotz]
I need to go. See you tomorrow.
16:15:53 [ebruchez]
John: Then readonly was maybe wrong in the spec.
16:16:45 [ebruchez]
Nick: The spec was pretty clear that you can't modify a readonly node, even through the DOM interface.
16:19:37 [ebruchez]
Erik: My impression is that this has lots of implications, and that the feature was not well thought out.
16:20:00 [ebruchez]
John: (highlighting setence in spec about "the XForms Processor should not allow any changes to the bound instance data node")
16:20:51 [ebruchez]
s/setence/sentence
16:21:01 [ebruchez]
John: This is the only MIP that is not a property, it is a constraint.
16:21:17 [wellsk]
(BTW charlie, eric and other scribes -- ya'll are doing great as I follow the discussions)
16:21:41 [ebruchez]
(Thanks Keith)
16:22:05 [ebruchez]
Nick: It is a property.
16:22:47 [ebruchez]
John: (Showing the new @calculate example to set a default value)
16:24:22 [ebruchez]
John: @constraint is not enforced.
16:25:20 [ebruchez]
Nick: I know there are use cases for readonly in the UI, but I stand by my idea that @readonly must be enforced.
16:26:32 [ebruchez]
John: So you say that actions are impacted by this, unlike other properties.
16:27:01 [ebruchez]
Uli: Submission enforces @relevant.
16:27:16 [ebruchez]
Nick: If it's in the model, like submission, then it can be enforced by the model.
16:27:38 [ebruchez]
John: So insert and delete can't change anything underneath?
16:27:46 [ebruchez]
Nick: Yes, the spec says that.
16:27:57 [ebruchez]
John: One of the two statements in the spec is wrong.
16:28:52 [ebruchez]
Erik: I agree there is an inconsitency here.
16:29:11 [ebruchez]
s/inconsitency/inconsistency
16:29:46 [ebruchez]
Nick: The model should enforce.
16:30:20 [ebruchez]
John: I don't like this property being so powerful, but I could live with it, provided we clarify all over the places.
16:32:23 [ebruchez]
Erik: (question about instance replacement and delete/insert impact)
16:32:34 [ebruchez]
Nick: You can replace what's around a readonly node.
16:34:35 [ebruchez]
Erik: (doesn't understand why things would work this way)
16:35:11 [ebruchez]
Charlie: Seems like a bigger "change" to clarify this.
16:35:59 [ebruchez]
Nick: Several XForms implementations enforce this.
16:36:03 [ebruchez]
Uli: Chiba does not.
16:36:14 [ebruchez]
s/does not/does enforce it too
16:36:23 [ebruchez]
Erik: Does it support insert/delete?
16:36:35 [ebruchez]
Uli: No, only value change.
16:41:32 [ebruchez]
Erik: Other issue is the staleness of the MIP value
16:42:03 [ebruchez]
John: Approach 1) Readonly enforced by form controls
16:42:35 [ebruchez]
John: 2) Readonly enforced by model and all actions and MIP staleness is not an issue
16:44:50 [ebruchez]
Charlie: (speaking about enforcing readonly for setvalue)
16:46:26 [ebruchez]
John: Question is whether setvalue has an effect or not.
16:47:21 [ebruchez]
John: Let's focus first on the question of whether readonly needs to be enforced by setvalue and the other actions (through the model).
16:47:52 [ebruchez]
Nick: At my company we think that this enforcement is necessary.
16:49:38 [ebruchez]
John: I think that if the model enforces, we need to build that feature.
16:49:58 [ebruchez]
Nick: But it's already a feature.
16:50:15 [ebruchez]
John: Or build the other feature, which is readonly in the UI only.
16:51:26 [ebruchez]
Uli: Option 3) Only setvalue is impacted.
16:52:26 [ebruchez]
John: This is what our implementation was doing.
16:57:30 [ebruchez]
Nick: Some of our forms will definitely break.
16:59:27 [ebruchez]
Erik: For me, I don't see it as a very strong case for the super-strong encapsulation that Nick and Mark S. want.
17:01:59 [ebruchez]
Charlie: Many of us do option 2, but we are worried about the work that it will imply to clarify.
17:02:11 [ebruchez]
John: I don't think option 2 is right at all.
17:02:51 [ebruchez]
John: I still think readonly is a property, consumed by the model at its leasure. It is consumed by the form controls and the submission.
17:03:25 [ebruchez]
s/I don't see it as a very/I don't see a very
17:04:05 [ebruchez]
Nick: We need the new UI-level readonly for what John wants.
17:04:24 [ebruchez]
John: No, I want the property to prevent the user to modify the data, and that's what I thought the spec did.
17:08:07 [ebruchez]
Erik: This is a fundamental discussion about XForms architecture: a black box-style of XForms model that enforces what the controller can do, vs. allowing actions to do pretty much everything.
17:08:49 [John_Boyer]
must adjourn for now but all sides have been thoroughly discussed, so we need to make a choice tomorrow
17:08:57 [John_Boyer]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:08:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/13-forms-minutes.html John_Boyer
17:11:51 [John_Boyer]
John_Boyer has left #forms
17:12:23 [wellsk]
wellsk has left #forms