IRC log of forms on 2008-02-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:44:12 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #forms
13:44:12 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-forms-irc
13:44:32 [Steven]: zakim, reserved now?
13:44:32 [Zakim]: on Tue Feb 5 08:44:00 2008 I see 66 reserved [26 available], 83 ports 30 minutes later [9 available], and 93 ports 60 minutes later [overbooked]
13:45:44 [wellsk]: wellsk has joined #forms
13:49:34 [Steven]: zakim, room for 3 for 190 mins?
13:49:36 [Zakim]: ok, Steven; conference Team_(forms)13:49Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 190 minutes until 1659Z
13:49:39 [John_Boyer]: John_Boyer has joined #forms
13:49:55 [Steven]: zakim, code?
13:49:55 [Zakim]: the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Steven
13:52:01 [wellsk]: zakim, call Forms-f2f
13:52:01 [Zakim]: ok, wellsk; the call is being made
13:52:02 [Zakim]: Team_(forms)13:49Z has now started
13:52:03 [Zakim]: +Forms
13:53:01 [Steven]: Meeting: Forms WG FtF Raleigh, NC, USA, Day 2
13:53:25 [Steven]: Chair: John Boyer
13:53:54 [Steven]: rrsagent, make log public
13:57:38 [markbirbeck]: markbirbeck has joined #forms
13:58:24 [klotz]: klotz has joined #forms
14:04:20 [klotz]: ok, will dial in now.
14:07:00 [klotz]: zakim, code?
14:07:00 [Zakim]: the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), klotz
14:08:12 [klotz]: trying again
14:09:15 [Zakim]: +Leigh_Klotz
14:11:46 [CharlieW]: CharlieW has joined #forms
14:11:57 [CharlieW]: Scribe: CharlieW
14:12:36 [Steven]: On the record: http://www.snee.com/bobdc.blog/2008/02/the_future_of_rdfa.html
14:13:30 [CharlieW]: John: should we continue to XForms 2.0 features or deep-dive into an example module?
14:13:56 [CharlieW]: Steven: i know how modules work, so i'd prefer 2.0 discussion
14:14:15 [CharlieW]: Steven: but it's important to see how to make progress on that
14:14:19 [CharlieW]: Uli: 2.0
14:14:29 [CharlieW]: John: could do an hour
14:14:46 [CharlieW]: Charlie: would like to have a template
14:15:17 [CharlieW]: Mark: we should start with a modularization template, but i haven't gotten in touch with shane yet
14:15:23 [CharlieW]: John: do we need an overview
14:15:34 [CharlieW]: Mark: could do that but i also have an example -- using a message on a div
14:16:11 [CharlieW]: John: let's start with that, then switch over to 2.0 later on
14:20:40 [CharlieW]: Topic: upcoming meetings
14:21:02 [John_Boyer]: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/FaceToFace
14:21:07 [CharlieW]: June 9th-12 in Amsterdam, no virtual days
14:21:26 [CharlieW]: Tech plenary will be in Cannes, not Paris, two virtual days beforehand
14:21:38 [klotz]: s/beforehand/aforewords
14:22:29 [CharlieW]: Topic: Action element content model
14:22:45 [CharlieW]: John: currently has "+" requiring at least one element
14:22:53 [CharlieW]: John: we agreed it should be "*"
14:22:58 [CharlieW]: John: should we change this for 1.1?
14:23:07 [CharlieW]: yes, we should do it
14:23:13 [CharlieW]: John: it's an easy spec change
14:23:27 [CharlieW]: Leigh: it's really editorial
14:23:38 [CharlieW]: Uli: does it make sense?
14:24:17 [CharlieW]: Leigh: could argue it's not editorial, since we're adding a test case
14:24:30 [CharlieW]: Leigh: but the test is against XML Events, not our spec so it's editorial
14:24:46 [CharlieW]: John: right, this change would add to the test suite, require support in the implementation reports
14:24:51 [CharlieW]: Leigh: nice test case for XML Events
14:24:58 [CharlieW]: John: have we publicized the test suite?
14:25:15 [CharlieW]: Keith: making changes to chapter 1 to emphasize new features...need to get people looking at it for accuracy
14:25:18 [CharlieW]: John: time frame?
14:25:27 [CharlieW]: s/accuracy/accuracy
14:26:16 [CharlieW]: Keith: about a week
14:26:36 [CharlieW]: John: do we need a formal issue process for the CR phase?
14:26:51 [CharlieW]: Steven: don't anticipate many issues
14:26:56 [markbirbeck]: ttp://www.yugma.com/app/loading.php?user=&role=0&collsession=203673916
14:27:04 [markbirbeck]: http://www.yugma.com/app/loading.php?user=&role=0&collsession=203673916 t
14:27:07 [markbirbeck]: ttp://www.yugma.com/app/loading.php?user=&role=0&collsession=203673916
14:27:09 [CharlieW]: John: i have the action item to change the action element content model
14:29:25 [Steven-eee]: Steven-eee has joined #forms
14:30:42 [Steven]: s/ i / I /
14:30:55 [Steven]: rrsagent, make minutes
14:30:55 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-forms-minutes.html Steven
14:32:22 [Steven]: Present: Nick, Keith, John Boyer, Mark Birbeck, Steven, Uli, Charlie, Leigh
14:33:58 [klotz]: i can't hear Mark
14:34:35 [CharlieW]: Mark: does example of modularization in web conf
14:35:19 [CharlieW]: Mark: most ajax libs have functions to display, e.g. modal dialog boxes -- as encoded in div's or span's as templates
14:35:35 [CharlieW]: Mark: instead of having multiple ways of doing this, why not use xf:message, xf:hint etc etc
14:36:33 [CharlieW]: Mark: the example in the demo uses a message, registered on a div rather than an xforms element
14:39:47 [CharlieW]: Mark: in what we're proposing for the hint module, you wouldn't even see the mouseover event registration
14:39:58 [CharlieW]: John: how would you do a help?
14:40:07 [CharlieW]: Mark: still to F1, or to platform-specific help feature
14:40:13 [CharlieW]: John: but our module would not say that
14:40:17 [CharlieW]: Mark: right
14:41:57 [CharlieW]: John: so label could be a module...
14:42:06 [CharlieW]: Mark: yes, it's handy to have in lots of places
14:45:36 [CharlieW]: Mark: focus is on the markup, underneath the script can be platform-specific
14:45:45 [CharlieW]: Mark: to enable the wiring, do show/hide etc
14:46:58 [CharlieW]: Mark: e.g. for styling, we can just inline some css, whereas in the script world you have to go find the message template and set various attributes procedurally
14:48:27 [CharlieW]: Mark: as well as control visibility explicitly
14:50:30 [CharlieW]: John: does this content cause problems for the XHTML schema?
14:50:37 [CharlieW]: Uli/Steven: yes, that's what modularization is about
14:51:02 [CharlieW]: Mark: we already have dtd's for xhtml+rdfa
14:51:12 [CharlieW]: Mark: already on the w3c server
14:52:02 [klotz]: +1
14:52:22 [CharlieW]: Steven: didn't require a new req track activity, just a combination of existing stuff -- power of modularization
14:54:28 [CharlieW]: John: when people say they need "valid" html what do they mean?
14:54:36 [CharlieW]: Mark: they need valid against *some* given schema
14:55:30 [klotz]: q+
14:56:02 [CharlieW]: Leigh: i like the idea of making these modules (help, hint, label) available
14:56:16 [CharlieW]: Leigh: but we need to figure out how to make them available inside message to make them usable
14:56:29 [CharlieW]: Leigh: event model is not worked out
14:56:46 [CharlieW]: Mark: not sure we need that from day 1 though, we can allow anything inside those elements, no other forms controls
14:56:57 [CharlieW]: John: as soon as someone does a message+input
14:57:15 [CharlieW]: Leigh: i'm more worried that we'll decide to change message, for example, and we'll have modularized the old one...
14:58:34 [CharlieW]: John: certainly one of the problems for message if that you put lots of controls in there, e.g. trigger, ui events will bubble up and cause the message to reappear
14:58:57 [klotz]: q-
14:59:23 [CharlieW]: Mark: right, but the context is focused enough here that we could get those details right...i.e. no trigger in the initial modules
14:59:35 [CharlieW]: Mark: then we need to clearly define how these controls behave to avoid these problems
15:00:09 [CharlieW]: Mark: for example, by narrowly restricting the events you subscribe for (as target not bubble, for example)
15:01:06 [CharlieW]: Mark: need both target and bubble for different scenarios, but we haven't spec's which we need and when
15:01:18 [CharlieW]: s/spec's/spec'ed
15:01:40 [CharlieW]: John: we might need to say something doesn't bubble outside of message, needs more xml events machinery
15:02:11 [CharlieW]: Mark: we would need to be clear in our module, not just attach for a mouseover but only on the element that applies etc
15:02:18 [CharlieW]: Mark: easier to define since it's a small space
15:02:38 [CharlieW]: John: when we provide not just message but hint and help too, how would we tell people to make those work if they have controls in them
15:03:05 [CharlieW]: Mark: in the way i just said, they only fire when element they're attached to is targeted -- this is for implementors not authors
15:03:25 [CharlieW]: Mark: markup is normal xforms markup
15:06:04 [CharlieW]: Mark: given we wouldn't have xml events in this first module, we probably couldn't have an explicit event binding for message
15:06:21 [CharlieW]: Mark: or put onclick="DOMActivate"
15:06:49 [CharlieW]: c/DOMActivate/message.activate()
15:08:47 [shepazu]: shepazu has joined #forms
15:09:53 [CharlieW]: Mark: candidate for module #2 might be xml events
15:10:10 [CharlieW]: Steven: but it's already modularized
15:10:34 [CharlieW]: Mark: so we could pull this together if we needed to
15:11:15 [CharlieW]: John: how do i filter on events targeted to my parent, just in xml events?
15:12:06 [CharlieW]: John: could we have a new event like ev:sourcetarget that would allow for this filtering?
15:12:42 [CharlieW]: John: to avoid the bubbling out of our children problem -- retriggering ourselves
15:12:47 [nick]: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xml-events-qname-2.mod
15:13:28 [CharlieW]: John: almost like we want to say "message means stop propagation for all children"...
15:14:02 [CharlieW]: Leigh: then we won't get submit propagated outside of the dialog
15:14:11 [CharlieW]: John: but the default processing still happens
15:14:50 [nick]: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xml-events-2.mod
15:16:21 [CharlieW]: John: we really need phase="target" in xml events
15:16:45 [CharlieW]: Mark: but we could do this in prose, telling implementors what the behavior should be -- offer the semantics not implementation
15:17:28 [CharlieW]: Mark: we could add xml events from day 1 but that might be too much...need more incremental approach
15:18:32 [CharlieW]: John: don't we need to specify the joint behavior of these specs?
15:19:28 [CharlieW]: Mark: these issues arise already today
15:20:35 [CharlieW]: Uli: is this endless loop really a problem?
15:21:38 [CharlieW]: Mark: in my example, the message element is a template, moved elsewhere in the tree, so any bubbling of events is not a problem in terms of triggering the message
15:23:23 [CharlieW]: Mark: we could define the behavior of the module to require this "disconnected" behavior -- in its own display space
15:23:33 [CharlieW]: John: yes, this would solve a lot of problems
15:24:16 [CharlieW]: John: vs. for repeat where we defined the variable elements to be part of the original tree
15:25:56 [CharlieW]: Mark: there are lots of details in terms of how the template (and styling) are used to create the instance to be displayed
15:34:19 [CharlieW]: Mark: so again we just need to specify in prose what we want the bubble/triggering behavior to be
15:36:36 [CharlieW]: John: problem is we said there's already an xml events profile around, so there's another way to activate the message and one which could well cause the bubble problem
15:36:53 [CharlieW]: John: I want that to mean ev:phase="target"
15:37:06 [CharlieW]: John: so don't we need the document that says how to combine these...
15:37:26 [CharlieW]: John: so it has to go into the message module, which doesn't depend on xml events
15:38:03 [CharlieW]: Mark: we can talk about dom events in the message module, not xml events
15:39:16 [CharlieW]: Mark: so we should define the xforms-hint event in this module, but not say how it's fired
15:40:21 [John_Boyer]: break
15:52:39 [unl]: unl has joined #forms
16:01:38 [Steven]: rrsagent, help
16:04:17 [CharlieW]: i/i can't hear Mark/Topic: XForms Modularization
16:05:19 [Steven]: rrsagent, make minutes
16:05:19 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-forms-minutes.html Steven
16:07:56 [Steven]: zakim, reserved now?
16:08:23 [Zakim]: on Tue Feb 5 11:07:00 2008 I see 205 reserved [overbooked], 180 ports 30 minutes later [overbooked], and 123 ports 60 minutes later [overbooked]
16:10:16 [CharlieW]: Mark: our module documents might be more informal than a traditional spec
16:10:25 [CharlieW]: Mark: more like the pattern discussion yesterday
16:10:39 [CharlieW]: Mark: list elements, examples, give events that are part of the package and their behavior
16:10:49 [CharlieW]: Mark: effectively have defined the interface
16:11:08 [CharlieW]: Mark: but elements and event names are still independent of implementation, which i think is preferable
16:11:31 [John_Boyer]: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_Future_Features
16:11:41 [CharlieW]: John: under our "modularization of existing patterns" category
16:11:52 [CharlieW]: Topic: Message, Event, Hint, Alert modules
16:12:10 [CharlieW]: Mark: we could just call this the "XForms Message Module"
16:12:24 [CharlieW]: Steven: yup
16:13:14 [CharlieW]: John: want to avoid misunderstanding that it can only be used in xforms
16:13:30 [CharlieW]: Mark: want to use this as on-ramp for xforms
16:13:37 [CharlieW]: John: so once you have it you might want more xforms
16:17:25 [CharlieW]: Leigh: must have a download so they can run with it
16:17:37 [CharlieW]: Mark: right, needs script impl, screen shots, etc etc
16:17:49 [CharlieW]: Mark: we're part of the ajax world but it's a different approach
16:18:38 [CharlieW]: Leigh: we're going at this backwards...
16:19:14 [CharlieW]: Leigh: they're not going to be interested in the spec, just the impl
16:19:39 [CharlieW]: Leigh: the spec is the "Cambridge" approach
16:19:46 [CharlieW]: Leigh: we just need working code
16:20:09 [CharlieW]: Mark: i agree, when it gets to ajaxian the headline is ... "new library available..." i.e. it's about the code
16:21:22 [CharlieW]: Mark: but the missing bit is the movement toward having standards in the ajax world...we have more than a library, confirms to a w3c standard
16:21:28 [CharlieW]: Mark: we need to close the loop
16:21:34 [CharlieW]: Leigh: yes, but it can be done incrementally
16:22:26 [CharlieW]: Mark: i can do that, but i think it needs the module
16:22:32 [CharlieW]: Leigh: but your readers don't
16:22:45 [CharlieW]: Leigh: by the time they want it it'll be ready...3 months from now
16:23:46 [CharlieW]: Mark: if i were to set up a separate site, define the behavior, it wouldn't have the status of xforms
16:23:55 [CharlieW]: Leigh: yes, it would as a partial implementation
16:24:09 [CharlieW]: Mark: so i'm hearing that maybe that work should be part of the group
16:24:54 [CharlieW]: Leigh: this will push it along faster
16:25:23 [CharlieW]: Leigh: you're not inventing new markup, it's refactoring and getting xforms out there
16:28:53 [CharlieW]: John: i'm willing to participate on the spec side -- it's like a mini-version of submission
16:29:19 [CharlieW]: John: there is spec work to do, it's not just pulling things out, but there are important details
16:30:21 [CharlieW]: Leigh: or Mark does his code first, says it's part of the xforms wg, we do a draft, etc iterating code first
16:44:03 [CharlieW]: John: what are next steps>?
16:44:12 [CharlieW]: Uli: I'd like to have/see Mark's code
16:44:19 [CharlieW]: John: what are the next steps on code?
16:44:39 [CharlieW]: Mark: need to combine some attributes into the hint element
16:44:46 [CharlieW]: Mark: would be great to use in Chiba
16:46:10 [CharlieW]: John: so will you add phase=target to xml events?
16:46:33 [unl]: Charlie, I would love to *help* Mark with the coding
16:46:48 [CharlieW]: even better
16:51:21 [John_Boyer]: http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#ui-repeat-processing
16:52:44 [markbirbeck]: Uli...thanks, by the way. :) The plan would be to open source this too, so there will be lots of opportunities to work on this.
16:53:15 [nick]: nick has joined #forms
16:53:38 [CharlieW]: The repeat item generation and repeat index update on insertion must behave as if it occurs in response to the xforms-insert event dispatched by the insert action. The index update must behave as if it occurs when the xforms-insert event reaches the target instance element in the capture phase.
16:54:03 [CharlieW]: John: does this make sense? is there a notion of an event reaching the target element *in the capture phase* ???
16:54:26 [CharlieW]: John: i.e. before any other handlers that might be defined for that event in the bubble phase
17:03:28 [Steven]: http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/events.html#Events-flow-capture
17:04:08 [CharlieW]: Mark: i believe there are implementations in html events that put default processing at this point -- before bubbling
17:04:38 [CharlieW]: John: trying to read xml event spec but getting "abuse of IP address" blocking
17:05:36 [John_Boyer]: lunch time
17:08:11 [Zakim]: -Leigh_Klotz
17:12:53 [Steven-mobile]: Steven-mobile has joined #forms
17:13:12 [Zakim]: disconnecting the lone participant, Forms, in Team_(forms)13:49Z
17:13:15 [Zakim]: Team_(forms)13:49Z has ended
17:13:16 [Zakim]: Attendees were Forms, Leigh_Klotz
17:36:01 [klotz]: http://xformstest.org/klotz/shibumiscript/
17:42:24 [ebruchez]: ebruchez has joined #forms
17:57:24 [Steven]: zakim, reserved now?
17:57:24 [Zakim]: on Tue Feb 5 12:57:00 2008 I see 123 reserved [overbooked], 57 ports 30 minutes later [35 available], and 57 ports 60 minutes later [35 available]
17:58:11 [Steven]: zakim, room for 3 at 1300 for 300 mins?
17:58:12 [Zakim]: ok, Steven; conference Team_(forms)18:00Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) at 13:00 for 300 minutes until 2300Z
17:58:35 [nick]: nick has joined #forms
17:59:40 [CharlieW]: CharlieW has joined #forms
18:01:27 [nick]: Scribe: Nick
18:05:27 [unl]: unl has joined #forms
18:05:29 [Zakim]: Team_(forms)18:00Z has now started
18:05:36 [Zakim]: +Leigh_Klotz
18:06:15 [nick]: John: Explains the XML eventing model
18:08:12 [Zakim]: +??P1
18:08:54 [klotz]: you aren't dialed in..erik andi are here
18:09:43 [Steven]: sorry
18:09:50 [Steven]: our mistake
18:10:00 [wellsk]: zakim, call Forms-f2f
18:10:00 [Zakim]: ok, wellsk; the call is being made
18:10:02 [Zakim]: +Forms
18:10:36 [nick]: Steven: ev:phase:="capture" and ev:target="target' isn't allowed
18:11:29 [wellsk]: zakim, call Forms-f2f
18:11:29 [Zakim]: ok, wellsk; the call is being made
18:11:31 [Zakim]: +Forms.a
18:11:48 [nick]: John: Points out that http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-events/images/event-flow.png is confusing
18:12:13 [Steven]: zakim, ??p1 is ebruchez
18:12:13 [Zakim]: +ebruchez; got it
18:12:17 [ebruchez]: zakimthans
18:12:18 [ebruchez]: thanks
18:12:37 [nick]: John: The diagram suggests that there is a capture phase at target
18:13:03 [Zakim]: -Forms
18:13:32 [nick]: MarkB: It is specified in DOM2 events that there is no capture phase in the target
18:15:08 [nick]: John: The diagram suggests otherwise
18:15:49 [nick]: Charlie: The paragraph under the diagram also hints that there is both a capture and bubble phase on target
18:22:31 [nick]: John: So we need a spec change
18:25:22 [nick]: John: Can we have an XForms implementation that does not have DOM 2 events?
18:25:30 [nick]: MarkB: Don't think so
18:27:27 [nick]: John: If you have an event that doesn't bubble, and it reaches target what is the phase then?
18:27:38 [markbirbeck]: http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/events.html#Events-flow
18:27:42 [nick]: MarkB: It is buble
18:30:05 [markbirbeck]: Key phrases in DOM 2 Events:
18:30:11 [markbirbeck]: First, in 1.2.2:
18:30:13 [markbirbeck]: "A capturing EventListener will not be triggered by events dispatched directly to the EventTarget upon which it is registered."
18:30:35 [markbirbeck]: Second, in 1.2.3:
18:30:42 [markbirbeck]: "Events which are designated as bubbling will initially proceed with the same event flow as non-bubbling events. The event is dispatched to its target EventTarget and any event listeners found there are triggered."
18:32:33 [John_Boyer]: Action: John to fix XForms 1.1 wording for repeat processing to associate repeat index updating with capture phase on containing model, not target instance
18:32:33 [trackbot-ng]: Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - John
18:32:33 [trackbot-ng]: Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jkugelma, jboyer)
18:33:17 [Steven]: s/buble/bubble/
18:35:17 [nick]: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_Future_Features
18:36:01 [nick]: zakim, who is making noise
18:36:01 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'who is making noise', nick
18:36:03 [klotz]: i have been on mute a while
18:36:06 [ebruchez]: I am muted
18:36:07 [Steven]: zakim, mute ebruchez
18:36:07 [Zakim]: ebruchez should now be muted
18:36:18 [nick]: zakim, who is making noise?
18:36:19 [klotz]: is it a scratchy noise?
18:36:23 [Steven]: buzzing
18:36:24 [ebruchez]: at least my Skype is supposed to mute me
18:36:28 [Zakim]: nick, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
18:36:29 [Steven]: zakim, mute klotz
18:36:30 [Zakim]: sorry, Steven, I do not know which phone connection belongs to klotz
18:36:37 [Steven]: zakim, who is here?
18:36:37 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Leigh_Klotz, ebruchez (muted), Forms.a
18:36:38 [Zakim]: On IRC I see unl, CharlieW, nick, ebruchez, Steven-mobile, shepazu, Steven-eee, klotz, markbirbeck, John_Boyer, wellsk, RRSAgent, Zakim, Steven, trackbot-ng
18:36:42 [Steven]: zakim, mute leigh
18:36:42 [Zakim]: Leigh_Klotz should now be muted
18:37:12 [klotz]: ok
18:37:15 [ebruchez]: k
18:37:20 [Steven]: zakim, drop forms
18:37:20 [Zakim]: Forms.a is being disconnected
18:37:21 [klotz]: mm mm mmmm mmm
18:37:21 [Zakim]: -Forms.a
18:37:37 [Steven]: zakim, dial Forms-ftf
18:37:37 [Zakim]: I am sorry, Steven; I do not know a number for Forms-ftf
18:37:54 [Steven]: zakim, dial Forms-f2f
18:37:54 [Zakim]: ok, Steven; the call is being made
18:37:55 [Zakim]: +Forms
18:38:15 [Steven]: zakim, unmute leigh
18:38:15 [Zakim]: Leigh_Klotz should no longer be muted
18:38:21 [Steven]: zakim, unmute e
18:38:21 [Zakim]: ebruchez should no longer be muted
18:38:59 [nick]: TOPIC: XForms 2.0
18:39:14 [nick]: Steven: More stuff working automatic
18:39:44 [klotz]: no audio from you now
18:41:33 [nick]: Steven: A lot of our problems with insert and delete are because we can't define constraints on structure (calculations)
18:42:44 [nick]: John: We have a bullet 'Better authoring of repeating constructs'
18:43:20 [nick]: Steven: You are asking for a synchronization, is it really a cacluta
18:43:42 [nick]: s/cacluta/calculate/
18:44:24 [nick]: Steven: Typically it is not the structure that you are putting in is not the structure that you want to send back
18:45:25 [nick]: s/is not the structure that you want to send back/that is the structure that you want to send back
18:45:37 [nick]: s/is not the structure that you want to send back/that is the structure that you want to send back/g
18:45:51 [nick]: Steven: What sis the bullet point?
18:46:10 [nick]: John: Structural constraints.
18:47:57 [nick]: s/Steven: What sis the bullet point?/John: What sis the bullet point?/
18:48:12 [nick]: s/John: Structural constraints./Steven: Structural constraints./
18:48:29 [nick]: John: What does it fix?
18:48:54 [nick]: Steven: I have to reconstruct the use cases I hit in the past
18:49:58 [nick]: John: Web services is a good example
18:50:18 [nick]: Steven: This is just a function
18:51:33 [Steven]: but I believe we want constraints as well
18:52:09 [John_Boyer]: Action: Steven to write up use cases and basic design for Structural Constraints
18:52:09 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-450 - Write up use cases and basic design for Structural Constraints [on Steven Pemberton - due 2008-02-12].
18:52:47 [nick]: John: Going back to the list (enumerates XForms 2.0 (high priority))
18:53:55 [nick]: Steven: Packagings could be one of the new features
18:54:22 [nick]: s/Packagings/Packaging/
18:55:30 [nick]: John: Don't we have that partially in XForms 1.2 with 'Custom XPath functions'
18:56:46 [nick]: John: What is extra in XForms 2.0?
18:57:18 [ebruchez]: ouch, gotta work on those XPath functions
18:58:26 [markbirbeck]: I.e., http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2005/04/css-xforms-dependency-engine-and.html
18:58:28 [markbirbeck]: :)
18:58:49 [nick]: Charlie: Unifying our UI based events and model based events
18:59:59 [ebruchez]: can't hear Charlie well, but I don't see improved UI events in the list of 1.2/2.0 features
19:00:20 [ebruchez]: i.e. replacing the IMO broken current UI events
19:01:36 [nick]: John: That is Drive UI (presentation) properties from data and calculates
19:03:20 [nick]: Charlie: But also constraints on UI properties, e.g.: If the size of an image is dependant on a slider, when the size passes a threshold a red border is shown
19:04:29 [nick]: MarkB: Whole the document is the instance
19:04:54 [nick]: John: If we have structural constraints and the whole document we don't need repeat
19:05:43 [nick]: Steven: Steven explains that repeat is constructional constraints plus ....
19:06:33 [Steven]: Repeat is structural constraints from the instance to the UI
19:06:43 [Steven]: We also need such constraints between instances
19:06:51 [Steven]: and Charlie says between UIs
19:08:00 [nick]: John: It is hard for digital signatures if the whole document is data, then you no longer have the markup as a separate thing to sign
19:10:01 [nick]: <html>
19:10:01 [nick]: <xf:model>
19:10:01 [nick]: <xf:instance>
19:10:01 [nick]: __delta__
19:10:01 [nick]: </xf:instance>
19:10:02 [nick]: </xf:model>
19:10:04 [nick]: <body>
19:10:06 [nick]: __presentation__
19:10:08 [nick]: <body>
19:10:34 [ebruchez]: s/_delta_/_data_
19:10:41 [ebruchez]: I assume ;-)
19:11:07 [nick]: <dsig:signature url-to-doc>
19:11:07 [nick]: subtract delta
19:11:07 [nick]: </desig:signature>
19:11:20 [ebruchez]: oops, wrong correction then
19:11:27 [nick]: s/_data_/_delta_/
19:11:34 [ebruchez]: sorry about that
19:14:09 [nick]: nick has joined #forms
19:15:43 [nick]: John: Explains why if the whole document is the instance, breaks a signature of an application (document without instance data)
19:22:18 [nick]: John: My reference system can refer to attributes in the whole document, but if you keep following the attributes expressions you get to the data
19:23:18 [nick]: MarkB: Instsance is then meaningless
19:23:48 [nick]: John: Instance has a meaning, it is the only thing that can change
19:24:15 [ebruchez]: I understand how this helps XML signatures, but it also sounds restrictive
19:24:25 [nick]: MarkB: That is leap for XForms, but it isn't a leap compared what they are doing in AJAX
19:24:43 [ebruchez]: i.e. "all state information must lead to XML data"
19:28:59 [nick]: MarkB: Example before we had output mediatype="image/*" we had the value of the output to create the image element. But now you can't nor more dynamically change the size of the image
19:30:19 [nick]: John: I like driving UI properties from data, but I want to identify the 'data'
19:32:03 [nick]: John: Now we say that the referencing engine is limited to the instance
19:33:38 [nick]: MarkB: <xf:output ref="..." style="with: { @width}" />
19:34:06 [nick]: <img src="{@url}" />
19:35:06 [nick]: MarkB: In current browsers it is easy to handle 'unknown' elements, but not for values of attruributes
19:36:52 [nick]: <xf:superbind nodeset="xf:output/@style"/> will enable our calculates on the style attribute on xf:output elements (style="with: { @width}" )
19:39:02 [nick]: <xf:output ...>
19:39:02 [nick]: <xf:???? ref="@width" class="..."/>
19:39:08 [nick]: </xf:outpu>
19:43:10 [nick]: <xf:output ...>
19:43:11 [nick]: <xf:constraint origin="@width" newvalue="here()/css:style/@width"/>
19:43:11 [nick]: </xf:output>
19:44:53 [ebruchez]: <tr class="{if (position() mod 2 = 0) then 'class1' else 'class2'}">
19:45:04 [ebruchez]: that's what you should be able to write
19:46:17 [nick]: klotz: This can solve styling rows with alternating color
19:47:28 [nick]: <xf:output ...>
19:47:28 [nick]: <xf:constraint nodeset="@width" target="here()/css:style/@width" calculate="."/>
19:48:28 [nick]: John: One of the things that jumps out is integration and generalisation
19:50:22 [ebruchez]: (gotta go for ~1 h)
19:50:28 [Zakim]: -ebruchez
19:52:10 [klotz]: http://xformstest.org/klotz/shibumiscript/
20:00:03 [wellsk]: zakim, mute klotz
20:00:03 [Zakim]: sorry, wellsk, I do not know which phone connection belongs to klotz
20:00:28 [John_Boyer]: zakim, who is noisy?
20:00:40 [Zakim]: John_Boyer, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Leigh_Klotz (94%)
20:00:51 [nick]: mute, klotz
20:00:54 [wellsk]: zakim, mute Leigh_Klotz
20:00:54 [Zakim]: Leigh_Klotz should now be muted
20:02:13 [markbirbeck]: http://www.svgopen.org/2004/papers/ConstraintSVG/
20:02:26 [markbirbeck]: e.g.: c:constraint attributeName="x" value="id('c')/@cx"/>
20:03:51 [klotz]: sorry dunno what the noise was.
20:04:08 [John_Boyer]: Action: Steven to write strawman proposal for Repeat Pattern
20:04:08 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-451 - Write strawman proposal for Repeat Pattern [on Steven Pemberton - due 2008-02-12].
20:08:23 [Steven]: I hate to say this (sort of) but we were doing presentation constraints in the late 80's. Here is a paper by a student of mine from 1992: http://www.cwi.nl/ftp/CWIreports/AA/CS-R9262.pdf
20:08:53 [Steven]: "Maintaining presentation invariants in the Views system"
20:08:57 [nick]: <img....>
20:08:57 [nick]: <xf:output ref="x">
20:08:57 [nick]: <xf:setvalue ev:event="xvc" ref="document()//img[@id='blurp']/@y" value="a+b"/>
20:08:57 [nick]: </xf:output>
20:08:57 [nick]: </img>
20:12:18 [nick]: Steven: Explains two way constraints
20:14:30 [nick]: Charlie: Components and constraints then?
20:18:10 [nick]: John: Some don't fall in any of those two
20:20:44 [nick]: John: Some are maybe just usability patterns
20:24:48 [nick]: MarkB:Explains how 'XBL' can be added to XHTML as a module
20:35:12 [nick]: MarkB: Submission should be a Module, that isn't 'constrained' to XML
20:36:18 [nick]: JohnB: In my view that is the instance module, that is causing the support of for example JSON
20:47:28 [nick]: JohnB: Should 'Need event for submission result received' be part of XForms 1.2?
20:48:08 [nick]: Charlie: Where are the models listed?
20:49:48 [nick]: JohnB: There is no clear line between XForms 1.2 and 2.0 with modularization
20:52:46 [Zakim]: +??P3
20:53:00 [ebruchez]: zakim, ??P3 is ebruchez
20:53:00 [Zakim]: +ebruchez; got it
20:53:09 [klotz]: yes, i am still muted for my sins
20:54:03 [ebruchez]: ok
20:57:15 [klotz]: q+
20:58:14 [John_Boyer]: ack klotz
20:58:24 [klotz]: i am muted
20:58:32 [John_Boyer]: zakim, unmute klotz
20:58:32 [Zakim]: sorry, John_Boyer, I do not know which phone connection belongs to klotz
20:58:40 [John_Boyer]: zakim, unmute Leigh_Klotz
20:58:40 [Zakim]: Leigh_Klotz should no longer be muted
20:58:59 [Steven]: zakim, klotz is Leigh_Klotz
20:58:59 [Zakim]: sorry, Steven, I do not recognize a party named 'klotz'
20:59:16 [Steven]: zakim, Leigh_Klotz is klotz
20:59:16 [Zakim]: +klotz; got it
21:16:24 [klotz]: break?
21:17:27 [nick]: JohnB: Is it ok that 'Integrated Validation and Recalculation' is under constraint
21:17:47 [nick]: Uli: What does it mean? Make it one step?
21:18:03 [nick]: JohnB: Correct
21:20:15 [nick]: Nick: Isn't Integrated Validation and Recalculation a sub bullet from MIP functions (when using validity in a calculate/constraint)
21:21:38 [nick]: Uli: What would be the name the now we have recalculate and revalidate
21:22:19 [nick]: John: Just recalculate -> validity should be checked automaticly
21:24:15 [nick]: JohnB: a favorite of mine is User-defined model item properties
21:25:03 [nick]: JohnB: Better expression of default values maybe this is XForms 1.2
21:31:46 [John_Boyer]: John_Boyer has joined #forms
21:35:03 [nick]: s/this is/is/
21:38:40 [nick]: JohnB: Do we need to do work for SCXML integration
21:38:47 [ebruchez]: I don't think so
21:39:03 [nick]: Charlie: Not for us I think, they need to consume our model
21:39:54 [nick]: Charlie: When we modularize everything
21:41:31 [nick]: JohnB: I think we should create a bullet Modularization not in XForms 1.2 nor in 2.0, it is separate of the version
21:42:33 [nick]: MarkB: Explains XBL and XBL 2.0
21:50:54 [nick]: Leigh, Charlie and MarkB: Have a discussion about advantages and disadvantages of XBL
21:51:10 [nick]: in relation with using it in XForms
21:53:04 [nick]: JohnB: I updated http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_Future_Features
21:54:46 [nick]: JohnB: Goes over the XForms Modularization bullets
22:08:59 [nick]: JohnB: Adds modules Action binding module, Repeat module,Switch module, Group module, Selection controls module, Simple controls module
22:09:28 [nick]: Charlie: Why is Selection controls module a separate module?
22:09:56 [nick]: JohnB: Not sure, we can have Core UI module and Container module
22:17:45 [nick]: JohnB: What is a good name for non-container form controls
22:18:14 [ebruchez]: "leaf" form controls?
22:20:40 [klotz]: core or basic would imply you plan to expand around them; leaf or single-node would imply you plan to expand to ones that dont' bind to a single node
22:21:26 [unl]: Atomic would be fine, since it indicates that these do not contain other controls
22:22:14 [ebruchez]: Well, in a tree of controls, they are actually leaves. Extension occurs by adding controls to container controls.
22:23:41 [nick]: JohnB: We will add a xf:model model
22:31:50 [nick]: discussion about the names of the modules
22:32:38 [nick]: should we call it XForms model model or Model model used in XForms
22:33:15 [nick]: s/model model/model module/
22:33:55 [nick]: MarkB: Maybe not all modules should be XForms modules (e.g: label)
22:36:08 [nick]: JohnB: If label becomes a module should we reconsider the binding mechanism, not only containment, and for example reintroduce the 'for' attribute
22:48:07 [Steeeven]: zakim, who is hre?
22:48:07 [Zakim]: I don't understand your question, Steeeven.
22:48:13 [Steeeven]: zakim, who is here?
22:48:13 [Zakim]: On the phone I see klotz, Forms, ebruchez
22:48:14 [Zakim]: On IRC I see John_Boyer, nick, unl, CharlieW, ebruchez, shepazu, Steeeven, klotz, markbirbeck, wellsk, RRSAgent, Zakim, Steven, trackbot-ng
22:48:26 [Zakim]: -Forms
22:48:29 [CharlieW]: CharlieW has left #forms
22:48:39 [Steeeven]: rrsagent, make minutes
22:48:39 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-forms-minutes.html Steeeven
22:49:14 [Steeeven]: trackbot-ng, end meeting
22:49:14 [trackbot-ng]: Zakim, list attendees
22:49:14 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been Forms, Forms.a, ebruchez, klotz
22:49:15 [trackbot-ng]: RRSAgent, please draft minutes
22:49:15 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-forms-minutes.html trackbot-ng
22:49:16 [trackbot-ng]: RRSAgent, bye
22:49:16 [RRSAgent]: I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-forms-actions.rdf :
22:49:16 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: John to fix XForms 1.1 wording for repeat processing to associate repeat index updating with capture phase on containing model, not target instance [1]
22:49:16 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-forms-irc#T18-32-33
22:49:16 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Steven to write up use cases and basic design for Structural Constraints [2]
22:49:16 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-forms-irc#T18-52-09
22:49:16 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Steven to write strawman proposal for Repeat Pattern [3]
22:49:16 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-forms-irc#T20-04-08
22:49:19 [wellsk]: wellsk has left #forms
22:49:24 [nick]: nick has left #forms