14:45:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #forms
14:45:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-forms-irc
14:46:06 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make log public
14:46:20 <Zakim> -??P10
14:46:21 <ebruchez> ebruchez has joined #forms
14:46:38 <Zakim> + +1.919.254.aaaa
14:46:56 <John_Boyer> Meeting: Weekly Forms WG Teleconference
14:46:58 <Zakim> + +03491211aabb
14:47:01 <John_Boyer> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Jun/0063.html
14:47:03 <Zakim> +??P13
14:47:08 <wellsk> zakim, aaaa is wellsk
14:47:08 <Zakim> +wellsk; got it
14:47:09 <Roger> zakim, 11aabb is Roger
14:47:09 <Zakim> sorry, Roger, I do not recognize a party named '11aabb'
14:47:15 <John_Boyer> Chair: John
14:47:17 <ebruchez> zakim, ??P13 is ebruchez
14:47:17 <Zakim> +ebruchez; got it
14:47:22 <John_Boyer> Regrets: Uli, Leigh
14:47:30 <Roger> zakim, 3491211aabb is Roger
14:47:30 <Zakim> sorry, Roger, I do not recognize a party named '3491211aabb'
14:47:31 <Zakim> +John_Boyer
14:47:35 <Zakim> +??P14
14:47:43 <prb> zakim, i am ?
14:47:43 <Zakim> +prb; got it
14:47:44 <Roger> zakim, +034 is Roger
14:47:44 <Zakim> +Roger; got it
14:47:53 <Charlie> Scribe: Charlie
14:48:50 <Roger> zakim, mute me
14:48:50 <Zakim> Roger should now be muted
14:49:49 <Roger> I think Rafael is not coming, but anyway Thanks Charlie...
14:49:53 <Charlie> sure
14:50:09 <Charlie> Topic: John's dog
14:50:12 <Charlie> he has allergies
14:50:23 <Charlie> runs into things, poor devil
14:50:29 <Charlie> but is cute
14:50:47 <Charlie> moving along...
14:50:59 <Charlie> Topic: upcoming telecons
14:51:06 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
14:51:06 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
14:51:07 <Zakim> +Steven
14:51:10 <Charlie> please fill out summer questionnaire
14:51:26 <Charlie> link is in the agenda
14:51:37 <Charlie> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/32219/formssummer08/
14:51:43 <nick> I'm going to be off for one week first or second week of august but not sure yet which week
14:51:49 <Charlie> July 16 most number away
14:52:01 <Charlie> should we cancel?
14:52:11 <Charlie> would need another chair since John is away too
14:52:16 <Charlie> poll: call on 16th?
14:52:20 <Charlie> -1
14:52:51 <Charlie> inick could chair july 16 if there's a call
14:52:55 <Charlie> s/inick/nick
14:53:11 <Charlie> could be enough people to have a useful discussion of modules
14:53:26 <Charlie> need work products to have useful conversation
14:53:43 <Charlie> conclusion: proceed with nick as chair for july 16
14:53:50 <Charlie> for july 23rd, need chair too
14:54:00 <Charlie> nick can do this one too
14:54:03 <Steven> only 6 have replied
14:54:05 <Charlie> John: Thanks!
14:55:00 <Charlie> good demo at the backplane call on ubiquity integration in dojo...do we want a repeat demo on july 2?
14:55:12 <Charlie> thomas or i can do this if there's interest
14:57:31 <Charlie> perhaps yugma would work on opera since webdialogs seems not to support it
14:57:38 <Charlie> firefox on mac or windows is ok
14:57:47 <Charlie> conclusion is to use webdialogs
14:59:11 <Charlie> Topic: XForms event
14:59:21 <Charlie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Jun/0032.html
14:59:34 <Charlie> Steven: enthusiastic response, content taking shape, nothing formal yet
14:59:46 <Charlie> W3C has expressed interest in some form of sponsorship
15:00:00 <Charlie> John: what's the anticipated size?
15:00:05 <Charlie> Steven: 250 "ish"
15:00:28 <Charlie> Steven: last time XForms event in London, oversold 100 slots within 2 days, anticipate response will be good
15:00:38 <Charlie> John: similar experience at NY emerging technologies group
15:00:54 <Charlie> John: normally draw 50-75, we got 300 or so for XForms
15:01:04 <Charlie> John: Just in NY State area
15:01:45 <Charlie> John: who are likely attendees?
15:02:07 <Charlie> Steven: insurance and finance industry last time had large turnouts, also local govts
15:02:22 <Charlie> Steven: have contacted folks doing impls for govt, they would like to demo
15:02:49 <Charlie> Steven: seeing lots of XML takeup in govt sites in the UK, e.g. RDFa
15:03:20 <Charlie> Steven: also, French implementation of XForms in progress, also expressed interest in coming.  have asked for test suite for 1.1
15:03:35 <Charlie> Steven: Concentre is the name of the impl
15:03:45 <Charlie> John: should connect with Keith...
15:04:37 <Charlie> Topic: Input Mode Appx E
15:04:39 <Charlie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Jun/0024.html
15:04:53 <Charlie> Steven: working on it...in progress
15:05:15 <Charlie> John: most other 1.1 issues have been worked on
15:05:23 <Charlie> John: Nick...could you regen the action item list?
15:05:33 <Charlie> Nick: yup...had some work impacts
15:05:56 <Charlie> Topic: XHTML2 access module
15:05:58 <Charlie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Jun/0038.html
15:06:09 <Charlie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Jun/0040.html
15:06:19 <Charlie> John: steven requested review from out group
15:06:23 <Charlie> s/out/our
15:06:34 <Charlie> Steven: we didn't get any LC comments
15:06:44 <Charlie> Steven: would like to at least point out folks have read it and are ok
15:06:51 <Charlie> John: NIck posted a response, thumbs up
15:06:59 <Charlie> Nick: yes, a quick read...didn't find any issues
15:07:13 <Charlie> John: Steven, could you give us the overview pls?
15:07:22 <John_Boyer> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xhtml-access-20080526/
15:07:43 <Charlie> Steven: currently access key is mixed with the markup itself
15:08:10 <Charlie> Steven: Access creates an element for accessibility (or other purposes, e.g. phone) separately in the document
15:08:24 <Charlie> Steven: in principle could have different access methods for different devices
15:09:00 <Charlie> Steven: binds keys to roles as well as ids
15:09:40 <Charlie> Steven: also for other event types as well, not just keys
15:10:06 <Charlie> John: first question, is I notice key="s" if user hits s this takes to that element?
15:10:30 <Charlie> Steven: might be alt-s or some other escape key, depending on user agent
15:10:58 <Charlie> Steven: can't override std bindings for user agent, and all access points must be available even if there aren't key bindings (e.g. menus)
15:11:09 <Charlie> Nick: can be overridden in user agent?
15:11:16 <Charlie> Steven: these are hints, user agent has last word
15:11:24 <Charlie> Steven: in the sense of user preferences
15:11:48 <Charlie> John: user-specified settings override user agent defaults
15:12:00 <Charlie> John: or author-specified settings
15:13:10 <Charlie> John: what happens with conflicts?
15:13:18 <Charlie> John: does the user get notification?
15:13:38 <Charlie> Steven: no notification, but all access points must be available in some way or another...
15:13:43 <Charlie> John: no advice on how to achieve that?
15:13:52 <Charlie> Steven: no normative requirement on that, no
15:14:02 <Charlie> John: any known practices?
15:14:29 <Charlie> Steven: yes, one is accessibility binding is diffferent from the chrome binding to avoid clashes
15:14:36 <Charlie> s/diffferent/different
15:14:58 <Charlie> John: another question, in addition to role, can target id
15:15:14 <Charlie> Steven: role is for group of elements marked with role, id is for one particular element
15:15:26 <Charlie> John: how should target id behave in xforms repeat?
15:15:30 <Charlie> Steven: good question
15:15:49 <Charlie> Steven: for example, what about URLs ending with # and ID?
15:15:54 <Charlie> (how does this relate?)
15:16:15 <nick> zakim, mute me
15:16:15 <Zakim> Nick_van_den_Bleeken should now be muted
15:16:34 <Charlie> John: coming from outside document in, we'd use current index of each nested repeat
15:16:53 <Charlie> John: i.e. we'd apply indices implicitly
15:17:02 <Charlie> Steven: so this is an xforms semantics not access
15:17:29 <Charlie> Steven: up to markup languages also where they put this element, imagine it goes in head but not required
15:17:41 <Charlie> John: for xforms it matters where the ID reference is coming from.  
15:18:23 <Charlie> John: does the actual keystroke behave as event dispatched to access element?
15:18:46 <Charlie> John: if you have access in repeat, which access would the event go to?
15:19:02 <Charlie> John: might be something we have to say in xforms, to pin down these issues for us
15:19:17 <Charlie> John: would this be worthwhile as LC feedback?
15:19:30 <Charlie> Steven: yes, but it's very xforms specific
15:20:05 <Charlie> Steven: same/similar problem in CSS
15:20:28 <nick> I always thought that the css selector matches all the repeated elements
15:20:51 <Charlie> John: if access inside repeat, are there other impacts?
15:21:07 <Charlie> Steven: pls send in this comment to let WG think about this
15:21:09 <Charlie> John: ok
15:21:43 <Charlie> Action: John_Boyer to submit LC comments about access relating to behavior in XForms
15:21:43 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - John_Boyer
15:22:14 <Steven> tracker, status?
15:22:22 <Steven> trackbut, status?
15:22:32 <Steven> trackbot, status?
15:23:11 <Charlie> Topic: request for comments on XML Events 2
15:23:20 <Charlie> John: Charlie already posted, is this satisfactory
15:23:36 <Charlie> Steven: yes, except that today as a result of our call sent request for extra advice
15:23:49 <Charlie> Steven: given forms has lots of implementors
15:24:01 <Charlie> Steven: at what point should listeners be registered? what should we say?
15:25:24 <Charlie> John: seems like early registration for declared handlers is appropriate
15:25:40 <Charlie> John: then as processor is starting, new repeats are created which would then trigger their handlers
15:25:49 <Charlie> Steven: second part of the question is should XML events markup be live?
15:26:04 <Charlie> Steven: i.e. if the markup is changed somehow, should the registration follow those changes?
15:26:19 <Charlie> Steven: I could imagine this would cause problems...
15:26:27 <Charlie> John: it's not something we support now, no
15:26:43 <Charlie> John: we need action item for some of the implementors to comment on this...
15:26:48 <nick> we neither, but it could be an interested features ;)
15:26:53 <Charlie> John: any vounteers?
15:27:06 <nick> zakim, unmute me
15:27:06 <Zakim> Nick_van_den_Bleeken should no longer be muted
15:27:09 <Charlie> Paul: this would be quite difficult for us as we're not in control of the DOM
15:27:16 <Charlie> Nick: chiba doesn't do this either
15:27:26 <Charlie> Steven: I'd be happy with a clear "no"...
15:27:49 <Charlie> Steven: if you're scripting the DOM then you can just set up the listeners you want directly
15:28:18 <Charlie> Nick: there's a remove event listener in XML Events 2, right?
15:28:33 <Charlie> Steven: yes
15:28:48 <Charlie> Nick: but you can add it declaratively and then remove by script
15:29:10 <Charlie> s/remove/add
15:29:34 <Charlie> John: could it be re-added later on? if removed by script? 
15:29:38 <Charlie> Steven: yes
15:29:54 <Charlie> Steven: XML Events markup is for registering handlers at some point early in document creation, then we're done
15:30:13 <Charlie> hmmm...it seemed to me that there was an interesting step toward move dynamic function in XML Events 2
15:30:19 <Charlie> s/move/more
15:30:47 <Charlie> John: if you add then remove a handler then persist, doesn't seem to be any record in the document?
15:30:53 <Charlie> Steven: right, this this is ok
15:30:59 <Charlie> s/this/but
15:31:17 <Charlie> John: can you declare a listener that is "off", i.e. declared but not connected?
15:31:20 <Charlie> Steven: no
15:31:36 <Charlie> Steven: but you can create a handler and then at some future time attach a listener
15:32:09 <Charlie> John: having a way to persist the current state of handlers and registrations is important
15:32:24 <Charlie> Nick: no worse than doing this in script
15:32:41 <Charlie> John: same problem i have with switch states...
15:33:12 <Charlie> John: current selected case of switch needs to hold across serialization
15:33:40 <Charlie> NIck: always registered, just uses "if" to decide if it's active so it will also be serialized
15:34:06 <Charlie> John: profiles of XML Events 2 applied to archival document formats...might want to give this guidance
15:34:30 <Charlie> John: action item to roll this up?
15:34:39 <Charlie> Nick: i can do it
15:35:00 <Charlie> Action: nick to respond to additional questions on XML Events 2 to XHMTL2 WG
15:35:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-474 - Respond to additional questions on XML Events 2 to XHMTL2 WG [on Nick Van Den Bleeken - due 2008-07-02].
15:35:52 <Charlie> Topic: Specifying initial value
15:35:54 <Charlie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Mar/0097.html
15:36:05 <Charlie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Mar/0053.html
15:36:15 <Charlie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Mar/0052.html
15:36:29 <Charlie> Nick: gives overview...
15:36:56 <Charlie> John: i had assumed we'd use something like "default" attribute
15:37:25 <Charlie> Nick: we had also discussed "initialvalue" don't recall where we came out
15:37:59 <Charlie> John: aside from naming, other issue (see 0097.html) in streamlined syntax but the way it affects the canonical xform is to populate generated instance data
15:38:43 <Charlie> John: there's no MIP called default
15:38:59 <Charlie> John: doesn't translate well to canonical xforms
15:39:13 <Charlie> Paul: do you mean in existing xforms?
15:39:28 <Charlie> John: yes, we're looking at 1.2 as both streamlined and also extensions to regular xforms
15:39:45 <Charlie> John: those mods which are needed to support the streamlined syntax
15:40:14 <Charlie> John: e.g. the context attribute to get around ../ notation in calculates
15:41:49 <Charlie> Nick: when new item is inserted, does it get a default value too?
15:42:14 <Charlie> John: yes
15:43:05 <Charlie> John: also has implications on "row template"...see example in 0097.html
15:43:35 <Charlie> John: prototype row is easy place to put defaults for repeats
15:43:56 <Charlie> Nick: what about when node bindings change?
15:44:09 <Charlie> Nick: can bind to empty nodes, should defaults be applied then or stay empty?
15:44:31 <Charlie> John: my opinion is that default was imposed at creation time rather than rewiring
15:45:16 <Charlie> John: is default or initial value a feature of streamlined syntax only, at doc init, or a feature in core xforms as part of live running document?
15:45:28 <Charlie> seems like a big change for core xforms
15:46:16 <nick> zakim, pointer?
15:46:16 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, nick.
15:46:26 <nick> rssagent, pointer?
15:47:30 <nick> rssagent, make pointer
15:47:49 <Charlie> John: question to the group is: anybody uncomfortable with initial value for 1.2? importing it from streamlined syntax.  those in core xforms would have instances with pre-seeded values
15:48:11 <Charlie> Paul: do you mean in core xforms the default attribute would do nothing? or insert these values if empty?
15:48:20 <Charlie> John: the former, default would not do anything
15:48:30 <Charlie> John: helps in the interpretation of name attribute
15:48:39 <Charlie> John: helps to generate the implied instance
15:48:56 <Charlie> John: if you want defaults in core xforms then you'd do this by writing out the starting instance explicitly
15:49:00 <Charlie> +1
15:49:24 <Charlie> Paul: i can see how it could be used in core xforms in lazy author mode
15:49:27 <Charlie> Paul: but i agree
15:50:05 <nick> rrsagent, here
15:50:05 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-forms-irc#T15-50-05
15:50:44 <Charlie> John: we can revisit when we have spec-ready text, but it seems like we should write this up for now...need to decide on the attribute naming
15:51:12 <Charlie> John: did we decide on "initial-value"?
15:51:18 <Charlie> John: or "default"?
15:51:51 <Charlie> Paul: one issue with default, is if you delete data from this node and then delete it, would get reinitted before submission...
15:52:05 <Charlie> s/and then delete/and then submit
15:52:14 <nick> I updated http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/Add_support_for_default_values_without_the_need_of_an_instance_element to refelct what we've said until now
15:52:25 <Charlie> Paul: just "initial"?
15:52:53 <nick> I have nothing against initial-value ...
15:53:02 <Charlie> John: or maybe "initialize" but do we not like att names that are verbs, steven?
15:53:13 <Charlie> John: as opposed to dashed values 
15:53:52 <Charlie> John: we do have "calculate" 
15:54:20 <Charlie> John: any objections to "initialize"?
15:54:32 <Charlie> John: ok, let's use that
15:54:45 <Charlie> John: does seem better than initial-value
15:55:08 <Charlie> Topic: automate boolean-from-string() on the boolean MIPs (relevant, 
15:55:08 <Charlie> readonly, constraint)
15:55:26 <Charlie> s/(relevant,/(relevant, readonly, constraint)
15:55:37 <Charlie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Feb/0077.html
15:56:37 <Charlie> John: xpath has rule that string converts to boolean based on empty or not
15:56:47 <Charlie> John: not the common sense expectation
15:56:51 <Charlie> John: of the contents
15:57:14 <Charlie> John: leads to lots of frustration
15:57:34 <Charlie> Nick: i see this is hard to understand but see two problems in doing this automatically
15:57:55 <Charlie> Nick: first is if you're using an expression inside another one, need to do this explicitly since we can only impact the outermost expression
15:58:27 <Charlie> Nick: so we're also no longer backwards compatible with 1.1, also with other langs like xquery, xslt
15:58:35 <Charlie> Nick: for nodeset to boolean
15:59:15 <Charlie> Paul: although i agree, not sure if the standard meaning in xpath is what's expected
15:59:26 <Charlie> Paul: expert authors will still have workarounds
16:00:08 <Charlie> Erik: in the 0077.html email i wonder what is the idea of the implicit conversion, when does this happen?
16:01:06 <Charlie> Erik: in xslt 2.0, when adding attributes on variables, the value is guaranteed to be of that type
16:01:29 <Charlie> Erik: in xforms we don't assign with the type property an xpath type...
16:01:51 <Zakim> -Steven
16:02:14 <Charlie> Erik: if we had the ability to assign the type to a value (not only for boolean) then we could do automatic conversions when using them
16:02:26 <Charlie> Nick: there is a conversion from nodeset to boolean by using boolean function
16:02:45 <Charlie> Nick: some authors make assumption that string with "false" as values, this converts to false, not true
16:03:22 <nick> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xquery-operators-20011220/#casting-boolean
16:03:36 <nick> switching to XPath 2.0 will fix our problem
16:04:04 <Charlie> Erik: should follow pattern from underlying w3c recommendations
16:05:07 <Charlie> John: problem is actually not false, but boolean when converting nodeset with children
16:05:27 <Charlie> John: how should we convert the nodeset for xforms?
16:05:39 <Charlie> Erik: not right that it doesn't make sense (current semantics)
16:05:55 <Charlie> Erik: clearly there are use cases for existence test
16:06:02 <Charlie> Erik: rather than value test
16:06:26 <Charlie> John: seems like that's the edge case
16:06:45 <Charlie> Charlie: worries about baking too much "policy" into xforms -- maybe put this in streamlined syntax?
16:07:59 <Charlie> Paul: also not backwards compat.
16:08:18 <Charlie> John: possibly attack with streamlined syntax
16:08:55 <Charlie> John: add the appropriate conversion function in accessing the implied instance
16:09:38 <Charlie> John: seems similar to ../ problem
16:10:00 <Charlie> Erik: funny construct, lots of magic
16:10:36 <Charlie> Erik: had to specify clearly
16:10:40 <Charlie> s/had/hard
16:11:11 <Charlie> John: can say it always applies boolean-to-string but again maybe we do this in streamlined syntax
16:11:29 <John_Boyer> <input name="x" relevant="y"/>
16:11:35 <John_Boyer> convert to core XForms
16:11:47 <John_Boyer> relevant="boolean-from-string(y)"
16:12:19 <John_Boyer> boolean-from-string(true())
16:12:31 <John_Boyer> returns true
16:13:08 <Charlie> Erik: when would a user write relevant in streamlined?
16:13:13 <Charlie> John: that's what they're usually writing
16:13:19 <John_Boyer> <output name="LineTotal" calculate="Price * Quantity"/>
16:13:34 <John_Boyer> or
16:13:50 <John_Boyer> relevant="$isChild"
16:14:13 <John_Boyer> relevant="isChild"
16:14:28 <Charlie> Erik: in this case, perhaps the typing of the node goes further
16:14:45 <Charlie> Erik: we don't use the type in xpath expressions
16:15:27 <Charlie> Erik: we could do the right conversions given this type knowledge in either streamlined or core xforms syntax
16:15:45 <Charlie> Paul: that doesn't sound very streamlined, form author has to know about types
16:15:51 <Charlie> Nick: but it's automatic
16:18:00 <Zakim> -ebruchez
16:18:01 <Zakim> -Nick_van_den_Bleeken
16:18:02 <Zakim> -Charlie
16:18:03 <Zakim> -wellsk
16:18:04 <Zakim> -John_Boyer
16:18:09 <Roger> Roger has left #forms
16:18:11 <Charlie> Charlie has left #forms
16:18:14 <wellsk> wellsk has left #forms
16:18:16 <Zakim> -Roger
16:19:12 <John_Boyer> zakim, who is here?
16:19:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see prb
16:19:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, John_Boyer, Zakim, nick, Steven, trackbot
16:19:21 <John_Boyer> zakim, disconnect prb
16:19:21 <Zakim> prb is being disconnected
16:19:22 <Zakim> HTML_Forms()10:45AM has ended
16:19:23 <Zakim> Attendees were Nick_van_den_Bleeken, Charlie, +1.919.254.aaaa, +03491211aabb, wellsk, ebruchez, John_Boyer, prb, Roger, Steven
16:19:31 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make minutes
16:19:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-forms-minutes.html John_Boyer
16:19:41 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, bye
16:19:41 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-forms-actions.rdf :
16:19:41 <RRSAgent> ACTION: John_Boyer to submit LC comments about access relating to behavior in XForms [1]
16:19:41 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-forms-irc#T15-21-43
16:19:41 <RRSAgent> ACTION: nick to respond to additional questions on XML Events 2 to XHMTL2 WG [2]
16:19:41 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-forms-irc#T15-35-00