15:44:24 RRSAgent has joined #forms 15:44:24 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-forms-irc 15:44:30 rrsagent, make log public 15:44:43 unl has joined #forms 15:44:55 John_Boyer has changed the topic to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0045.html 15:45:05 wiecha has joined #forms 15:45:23 Meeting: Weekly Forms WG Teleconference 15:45:25 HTML_Forms()10:45AM has now started 15:45:26 Chair: John 15:45:29 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0045.html 15:45:32 +wellsk 15:45:39 +[IBM] 15:45:42 -wellsk 15:45:43 +wellsk 15:45:51 zakim, [IBM] is wiecha 15:45:51 +wiecha; got it 15:45:56 +unl 15:46:01 prb has joined #forms 15:46:08 +John_Boyer 15:46:46 + +0207689aaaa 15:47:33 Zakim, I am 0207689aaaa 15:47:33 sorry, prb, I do not see a party named '0207689aaaa' 15:48:07 zakim, I am +0207689aaaa 15:48:07 +prb; got it 15:48:31 ebruchez has joined #forms 15:49:02 zakim, mute me 15:49:02 unl should now be muted 15:49:50 zakim, dial steven-617 15:49:50 ok, Steven; the call is being made 15:49:51 Regrets: Leigh 15:49:51 +Steven 15:49:55 zakim, code? 15:49:55 the conference code is 36767 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), nick 15:50:26 + +1.650.515.aabb 15:50:44 +Nick_van_den_Bleeken 15:50:46 zakim, +1.650.515.aabb is ebruchez 15:50:46 +ebruchez; got it 15:50:49 zakim, mute me 15:50:49 Nick_van_den_Bleeken should now be muted 15:51:12 zakim, who is here? 15:51:12 On the phone I see wellsk, wiecha, unl (muted), John_Boyer, prb, Steven, ebruchez, Nick_van_den_Bleeken (muted) 15:51:14 On IRC I see ebruchez, prb, wiecha, unl, RRSAgent, John_Boyer, wellsk, Steven, nick, Zakim, trackbot 15:52:58 ?me I'm not feeling wel 15:53:23 scribe: Paul 15:53:28 scribenick: prb 15:53:48 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0045.html 15:54:18 John: First on Agenda, talk about next F2F, late getting out infopage and signup sheet 15:54:28 John: Steven, can you arrange that with Raman? 15:54:52 Steven: yes, I'll work that out 15:55:07 John: We don't have much time before the next one, to get those pages up 15:55:34 John: same time, we need to develop an agenda for what we'll cover in the F2F, to be as effective as possible, so I'm opening up the floor 15:56:01 John: We have a virtual day on Thursday, after the Wednesday telecon, then the three days in Califonia at Google 15:56:13 Who is going to be there, phsically? 15:56:22 Keith: Maybe XForms for HTML? 15:56:57 John: alright, I've not seen notes about it, but we can go over the draft and talk about some of the fine points there. That's a good thing 15:57:06 John: I think Raman and Leigh, 15:57:12 Erik too 15:57:14 Steven: I think Nick 15:57:17 i don't have approval yet 15:57:31 John: I think I will be there, but I don't have approval yet, but it's in my backyard 15:57:33 uli is going to be there 15:57:58 John: hopefully I'll get approval soon 15:58:14 John: Charlie, you don't have approval yet? 15:58:18 Charlie: yes 15:58:28 John: Will you attend remotely? 15:58:30 s/yes/correct 15:58:32 Charlie: Yes 15:58:41 John: Steven, I assume you'll be there? 15:58:50 Steven: As long as there are enough people 15:58:57 John: Keith? 15:59:12 Keith: I'll attend remotely 15:59:19 Paul: I won't be there 15:59:24 Steven: Nor will Mark 15:59:52 Steven: The physical dates are 9th-11th, Monday-Wednesday yes? 15:59:57 John: yes 16:00:26 John: Virtual Days are February 5th, 9am to 3pm Eastern Standard Time, with Hour Break 16:01:09 John: We have used Yugma for session management, we had some difficulties on yesterday's backplane call, can everyone ensure they have the latest version for their platform 16:01:37 John: It will be difficult to have a lenghty meeting without support from web conferencing 16:01:59 John: I'm sure not everyone has focussed on the details of XForms for HTML, any others? 16:02:19 Keith: We could go through some of the implementation status reports to discuss things that are problematic 16:02:35 John: It might be useful to consolidate some of the results in the meeting 16:03:10 John: e.g. we have full reports for EMC, and Firefox, and Chiba have given a report 16:03:41 Keith: What about optional functionality? Does there have to be any passing implementation? 16:03:55 Keith: e.g. p3ptype and mailto submissions 16:04:22 Keith: I don't know what the score is with the w3c process wrt optional items 16:04:38 John: I'll put that in my bullet list of agenda items 16:04:54 John: I also say an email from Uli about problems with modularising submission 16:05:12 sounds good 16:05:18 s/say/saw 16:05:24 maybe we can do some real writing of modules 16:05:25 John: Do you find it useful to try to work through the details of modularising submission in the F2F? 16:05:31 Charlie: and other modules 16:05:47 Charlie: We could do some actual writing of some 16:05:48 I hope I can peropare something for the MIPs module 16:05:56 Meeting attendance at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/32219/formsftf200902/ 16:06:34 John: Are you suggesting that the principal module author would be ready to project their working environment, and discuss wording, then edit actively? 16:06:56 Charlie: yes, it will be a bit tough with some of us remoting 16:07:14 John: Whoever's projecting will also have to project on Yugma 16:07:27 yes, It's wiondows 16:07:36 John: Nick, do you have an operating system that yugma supports for projection, i.e. not Mac 16:07:48 Charlie: What's the problem? Yugma does well on a mac 16:07:56 zakim, who is making noise? 16:08:00 John: in terms of projecting? 16:08:07 wellsk, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: wiecha (19%), John_Boyer (5%), prb (9%), Steven (46%) 16:08:24 Charlie: that's just video out, Yugma is fine for initiating a meeting 16:08:32 zakim, mute me 16:08:32 prb should now be muted 16:08:49 i was confused about what we meant by "projecting" ... yugma on the mac can be used to initiate the share, yes 16:09:29 John: in terms of testing out Yugma, I think that next week at Wednesday's meeting, we'll do a dry run, not that we have anything to share, but to make sure that everyone on the call can use it, and have a day to respond 16:10:05 John: I suppose we have the bind module modularisation to work through and sweat the details of 16:10:08 John: What else? 16:10:26 John: I want to have a rough sense of what we will talk about on each day 16:10:44 Charlie: I'm a bit lost on how we've left the granularity of the modules 16:11:17 John: this modularisation is proving challenging, and I'm a little concerned about how much time we put into it 16:11:35 Keith: We should have a short hour conversation about our goals as workign group this year 16:11:37 John: OK 16:12:15 John: particularly since our charter is technically up at the end of the year, and we'll have to go for rechartering, so we need to figure out what we hope to achieve to support that effort 16:12:40 John: we have a number of 1.2 features that we have talked about adding, not many, but some dot-release things that help us close some gaps 16:12:53 John: some folks, including me have some action items here 16:13:24 John: instead of taking these features, and waiting for spec-ready text, it may be good to do some group design, and outline the spec for those features 16:13:49 John: In parallel to the modularisation, what do we think about writing a thin spec for 1.2 new features? 16:14:00 spec ready text? 16:14:05 John: stuff that will eventually be consumed byt the 16:14:19 John: modules that define those new features. 16:14:20 bcz some features requires trweaking all over the spec 16:14:41 s/requires/require/ 16:14:56 John: a way to detect what's new, and give us some velocity on modularisation, by removing worry about new language 16:15:07 John: Does a thin spec sound reasonable? 16:15:08 unmute, me 16:15:18 zakim, unmute me 16:15:18 Nick_van_den_Bleeken should no longer be muted 16:15:25 Charli: I'm worried about bandwidth, we're not getting much traction on work we are doing 16:15:51 s/Charli/Charlie 16:16:12 Nick: I've tried to write some modules for new features, and it requires tweaking throughout the whole spec, it depends on how much we are modularising, if we are writing very small modules, it might be difficult 16:16:46 Nick: the most important thing is to get something modularised as soon as possible, and not to create too small modules, as that's not going to work with the work we have on now 16:17:08 John: People doing modules, are you starting with the very latest 1.1 editor's draft text? 16:17:19 Nick: I was using the CVS, so yes, the latest 16:17:59 zakim, mute me 16:17:59 Nick_van_den_Bleeken should now be muted 16:18:14 John: We have a couple more odds and ends of action items of changes to 1.1 that have cropped up over the last year and a bit, so module authors will have to keep their eyes open for any changes in the text that they are consuming, we will have some parallel work going on 16:19:06 John: I'm concerned about modularisation because it's not going very well, or very fast. It's an eggs in one basket problem, as if we don't have anyone doing 1.2 features, then we don't have anything to show, if modularisation keeps going as is 16:19:33 Zakim, unmute me 16:19:33 prb should no longer be muted 16:20:32 John: When we get 1.1 to PR, then it will be time to start trying to specify, with more spec-ready texr, any features of 1.2. It makes sense to ensure that 1.1 goes to PR first, so it is frozen 16:21:17 John: that leaves open the question of whether we spend time talking about these features in more detail in the F2F, so that people know what they are doing when they come to do them 16:21:32 John: If no objections, I'll put them on an agenda 16:21:44 John: we have submission, bind, do we want to go over some data modules? 16:21:49 Charlie: yes 16:23:19 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_Future_Features 16:23:23 John: either Thursday 5th (Virtual), a hard pass, where we go through it together until we have something ready to go to 1st WD, I suspect we'd do Binding attributes and Data Islands, and Data Accessors together 16:23:39 Charlie: Are we proposing to fold those back in again? What is the granularity? 16:24:18 John: Are we going to put them in one spec, even though they are separate modules. If we can cut down on the number of specs we are pushing through W3C, it would be better 16:24:39 Charlie: It would help us work out issues of making cross-module references 16:24:46 John: Do you have CVS Access yet? 16:24:50 Charlie: not yet 16:25:26 John: You need a tool called Putty, which produces what is needed 16:25:39 http://putty.darwinports.com/ 16:25:42 for mac 16:25:49 John: I have some instructions for myself on how to do it 16:26:01 http://www.w3.org/2006/tools/SettingUpSshCvs 16:26:18 for eclipse http://www.w3.org/2006/07/eclipse/eclipse.html 16:26:21 John: I did this in 2005, the only hint was open ssh 16:26:39 John: Keith, you have CVS access already? 16:26:42 Keith: yes 16:27:14 John: I can segue into things after agenda development, I'll try to put together more of a day by day agenda, and run it by you on Wednesday 16:27:38 Steven: Uli wants Access, too. I'll see what I need to do 16:28:07 John: Uli, If you are using windows, there is a putty tool that will produce the kinds of keys you need to send Steven 16:28:22 John: XForms 1.1 implementation reports and progress 16:29:07 John: One agenda item - Keith could you check in some of your updated FF reports into the CVS tree, in the location where the others are? 16:29:12 Keith: I can do that 16:29:23 John: Could you put the EMC ones up there as well 16:29:40 Keith: I'll do that, and I'll get one started for Chiba, 16:30:34 John: In the case of Chiba, we could start with the email that they sent, and turn it into a focussed report. Even as a text file. Just so it isn't too much of a heavy project. Reasonable? 16:30:39 Keith: I can do that. 16:30:52 John: making something beautiful might be too much work 16:30:56 CVS at W3C info here - http://www.w3.org/Project/CVSdoc/ 16:31:07 John: We also have the ubiquity-xforms growing and changing report 16:31:51 John: There are features that I know we have in ubiquity, but don't necessarily pass the tests, and I suspect this is true of other implementations. This seems to be because the tests use non-required features 16:32:26 John: Charlie has finished submission/resource, for http and https, but the tests, for convenience, are operating over file. 16:32:50 John: I wonder if it is advisable to rewrite some of the tests, so that they don't use non-required features 16:33:15 John: As we run across them, when someone is doing an implementation, We need 2 things 16:33:51 John: if someone thinks a different test would be reasonable, we see if it is suitable, and swap it in, but it may cause implementations to fail that passed before 16:34:15 Charlie: I made such a change, but I didn't want to put it into the W3C Tests 16:35:11 John: If the implementation reports are dated, then we have an audit trail of changes, so if a test fails after that date, then we can see that that may be the cause 16:35:56 John: In the case of resource, the chance isn't zero that we will mess things up, so do we need to go to implmentors and ask them to retest 16:36:20 Keith: The test suite is not always in step with the living, breathing spec document 16:36:35 John: e.g. there are still outstanding changes in the header feature 16:36:47 John: how many implementations will pass those? 16:37:13 John: I can't remember what the changes are, do we have good tests for those? The test suite doesn't cover everything 16:37:54 John: Is there a test of insert for the root element, using the @context? I supsect not, as we'd have 200 tests in the actions chapter alone 16:38:09 Keith: it's not really a unit test, more a concept test, 16:38:40 John: what we did with 1.1 was that the exit criterion for CR phase (implementation) is defined in terms of the test suite 16:38:59 John: the test suite is the basis for defining interoperability and conformance 16:39:25 John: the way w3c reccomendations work, is that the test suite needn't be perfect, but good, and it is good 16:40:27 John: the recommendation can acheive it's purpose of stability, interoperability, and suitability for uptake across the wider computing industry. it is the end point for a standards committee, but the start point for further work 16:41:42 John: for some of these changes to 1.1 during the course of implementation it's not necessarily the case that we need a whole lot of new tests for them, we can sort of have a tagged revision of the test suite, saying here is a snapshot of the suite when we advanced the recommendation. We may continue changing after PR 16:41:57 Keith: it is in CVS, so it can be branched and tagged by whoever 16:42:22 Charlie: I think John is suggesting doing this at rare intervals, such as advance to PR, yes? 16:42:43 John: I think so, so the question is - what is the process by which we gain approval to change a test 16:43:18 Charlie: possibly an email code review, someone could chek into a changes directory, like in ubiquity 16:44:08 John: if we have a lot of people with CVS access, they could send it to the group, saying here is the test, this is why it should change, etc. and we could discuss it here. if they have access, they can chek in 16:44:10 Keith 16:44:58 Keith: it would be good to tie the tests to the spec authorship process. Looking back, writing the words for the spec, and the test case reviewed with the spec in mind would be helpful 16:45:47 John: when we first created the suite, we had people in pairs at a F2F, and they tried to test all the assertions made in that chapter. We didn't have the bandwidth to complete it with multiple teams 16:46:00 John: You did all the 1.1 stuff, which was a lot of work 16:46:49 John: this will be an issue as we modularise. People need to think - how do we advance that module? Each module needs a test suite attached, which is a lot of work 16:47:31 Keith: going back to the process, if you want change, sending an email with the test, and why it should be changed, gain a minimal approval, then I could meld it into the CVS tree 16:48:10 John: Once we actually decide to update a test, we could send a message out to www-forms saying - if you want to update your implementation report, please do 16:48:19 John: but we'll just leave it as passing 16:48:44 John: do you fail because you lack a feature, or because there's something wrong with the test. 16:48:53 John: they will let us know if they pass 16:49:22 John: That's only if you are implementing file: protocol 16:49:44 Charlie: I'll look at the tests, to see if I should replace with HTTP, or split into two different tests 16:49:57 Charlie: I don't want to move conformance backwards 16:50:09 John: We'll have to play it by ear, and wait for feedback 16:50:35 John: if there are other places where we are using optional features to test required features, those are the kinds of changes we want to make 16:50:53 John: we had some emails about errors in the tests for action - did that correspond to test suite updates? 16:51:21 Keith: yes it did, there was one that I retested because I thought it was working fine, but another that I fixed. 16:51:35 John: did those changes get reflected in ubiquity? 16:51:38 Keith: yes? 16:51:51 John: Did FF and EMC update based on these? 16:52:03 Keith: I tested FF, I'm not sure about Chiba 16:53:20 Keith: to follow up: both Chiba and EMC, we removed 40-45 test cases from the 0-1 implementation report list 16:53:24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0044.html 16:53:31 Keith: that was very helpful to us 16:53:51 John: That link is your latest email, yes? 16:53:56 q+ to mention picoforms 16:53:58 Keith: there was one this morning 16:54:03 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0050.html 16:54:58 Keith: I'm trying to juggle these implementation reports along with the ubiquity implementation reports. We have the reports on the ubiquity-xforms google site. So they are available in public if anyone wants to question the process 16:56:07 John: WRT this updated email. Are there any of these things that we say are required, that we might need a different conformance level for - e.g. the chapter 7 things such as hmac and digest. we have tests for different sha... 16:56:58 John: why are they split? I'd prefer five, ubiquity fails because of no sha256, 16:57:10 Keith: My understanding is that all XPath functions are required 16:57:32 John: I may have missed a required or optional when putting together the conformance 16:57:50 John: all functions are required, but are all parameterisations of all functions required? 16:57:56 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#fn-digest 16:57:59 Keith: That's not spelled out 16:58:41 John: look at function digest, 1, 256 are required and 384, 512 optional 16:58:56 Keith: so we can move some off the list and onto optional 16:59:28 John: so that begs the question about sha256, I think Leigh argued that it should be required, but should it be recommended? 17:00:03 John: We need to discuss that deeper, but we need to do some triage - how badly do we need them? 17:00:17 Keith: if they are optional how does that affect PR 17:01:01 John: The w3c process is that we define our exit criteria for CR, when we enter CR, assuming the director approves document (which he did) what we said in the document is what we are held to 17:01:25 John: so we have 2 implementations of all required feature and one of any others 17:02:32 John: so it would require changing the requirements on the features themselves. If we do that, we should have a focussed (2nd) last call. We go back to last call for the minimum number of weeks to find out if there are any formal objections to the changes we are making 17:03:06 John: so one would be that if we say something is optional, then there doesn't need to be any implementation of it, just "if it is to be done, this is how" 17:03:39 John: this is an open question, not needing resolution right now. Do we entertain the notion of making conformance level changes? It's looking advisable 17:04:21 John: Do we have any features whose conformance level we want to change, and a change that means we don't need any implementations of optional features to exit CR 17:04:43 John: I'm feeling a lot more comfortable that we'll have a full agenda, which is good 17:05:22 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0042.html 17:05:26 John: topic in Action items list that we have to skip, but we could get through an easy bugfix issue and generate action items 17:05:49 John: here is an email I sent, when I was doing a ubiquity code review about insert actions 17:06:15 John: I noticed a disconnect between the appendix example, and what the insert action says it should do 17:06:28 John: we claim that it is possible to replace the instance document 17:06:59 John: it looks like the wording is to replace the root element, any of its siblings must be deleted with a regular delete 17:08:01 John: if you try to insert into the children of the root node, you end up with an ill formed XPath data model, and an ill-formed instance data, because you can only have one root element 17:08:37 John: So we wrote it to say if you refer to the root node, with the context attribute, then the target for insertion is the old root element, so replacement will happen 17:09:40 John: we gave no example in Appendix B, but in B12, we use nodeset, so there is a second case in which we are inserting a node into the root node, so that there is a sibling of the root element 17:11:05 Old wording: If the target location was the root element of an instance, then the cloned node replaces the instance root element." 17:11:10 this in bullet 8 17:11:36 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#action-insert 17:11:50 Go to bullet 7a 17:12:11 then look at the second bullet in 7a 17:12:31 John: If the insert location node is the root node of an instance (which is the parent of the root element), and the cloned node is an element, then the target location is the root element of the instance. 17:12:52 John: the only way to get the insert location node to be the root node is to use the context attribute 17:13:20 Problem is 7b 17:13:20 John: we are covering off that when you have identified that you are inserting into the root node, and it is an element, then it is a replace of the root element 17:13:33 7b covers what happens in appendix B.12 example 17:13:40 John: The problem is 7b: which is what happens in appendix B12 17:14:13 John: when you identify the root element with nodeset, then the target location is immediately before or after, depending on @position 17:14:39 John: so when you get to step 8, the target location is not the root element, but immediately before or after it 17:14:52 John: so I suggest a wording change to cover both cases simultaneously 17:15:35 John: What's common here is that if the parent node of the target location is the root node, and the cloned node is an element, then we should be replacing the root element before inserting the cloned node 17:15:38 q? 17:15:48 New wording: If the parent node of the target location is the root node of the instance, and the cloned node is an element, then the instance root element is deleted before the cloned node is inserted." 17:16:49 John: This does a couple of things. In the old 7a case, when the target location is the root element, then we have the root node, which is good, but in 7b when it is before or after, we get to cover both bases 17:18:06 John: is anyone uncomfortable with this change? 17:18:14 it looks good for me too 17:18:25 John: Erik says it looks good, and he's closely associated 17:18:54 ACTION John_Boyer Effect the change to insert based on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0042.html 17:18:54 Sorry, couldn't find user - John_Boyer 17:19:19 John: Steven, did you want to say anything about the test suite? 17:19:38 Steven: I have spoken to picoforms, they haven't forgotten, it's just a question of manpower. 17:19:53 John: We might be able to ask them for a focussed report, like Chiba 17:20:03 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/FtF_2009_02 17:20:07 Steven: They also have a big announcement, which will be exciting 17:20:24 Steven: the F2F is web page and registration is up 17:20:38 -Nick_van_den_Bleeken 17:20:38 John: Good work for today, upgrade Yugma 17:20:39 -wiecha 17:20:41 -wellsk 17:20:41 -unl 17:20:43 -John_Boyer 17:20:45 -Steven 17:20:45 -ebruchez 17:20:54 -prb 17:20:55 HTML_Forms()10:45AM has ended 17:20:57 Attendees were wellsk, wiecha, unl, John_Boyer, +0207689aaaa, prb, Steven, Nick_van_den_Bleeken, ebruchez 17:21:08 rrsagent, make minutes 17:21:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-forms-minutes.html John_Boyer 17:21:11 rrsagent, bye 17:21:11 I see no action items 17:21:51 RRSAgent has joined #forms 17:21:51 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-forms-irc 17:22:06 rrsagent, make log public 17:22:44 Due to a missing colon, rrsagent missed the following action item, so I'm typing it again to ensure it doesn't fall through the cracks 17:22:49 ACTION: John_Boyer Effect the change to insert based on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0042.html 17:22:49 Sorry, couldn't find user - John_Boyer 17:23:00 rrsagent, make minutes 17:23:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-forms-minutes.html John_Boyer 17:23:03 rrsagent, bye 17:23:03 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-forms-actions.rdf : 17:23:03 ACTION: John_Boyer Effect the change to insert based on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0042.html [1] 17:23:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-forms-irc#T17-22-49