Forms Working Group Teleconference -- 13 May 2009

<trackbot> Date: 13 May 2009

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009May/0024.html

<John_Boyer> scribe: Nick

<John_Boyer> scribenick: nick

<unl> hixie's proposal is at http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019681.html

XForms 1.1 Implementation report

XSLTForms to list of implementations http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2009Apr/0002.html

John: Steven can you contact them

Nick: Steven can you ask them to provide us the standard test suite results XML
... if they want to be included in the implementation report

John: They just want to be listed as an implementation

Steven: OK I will contact them, and ask if they will run the test suite

<Steven> Done

<John_Boyer> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2009Mar/0000.html

Steven: Sent the email

None XML content in xf:instance

John: The src attribute is resolved first, if absent then we look at in-line content, if not we look at resource,
... You might to include white space or a comment as in-line content
... if the in-line content is other than empty content we try parse

Nick: The in-line content is already parsed

John: I mean it just checks if the content is a valid document (only one element)
... if not we fail the process
... Can we ignore it for now, or maybe even for the future

<John_Boyer> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#structure-model-instance

Nick: Do we specify what 'empty' is? Maybe we can treat white space and/or comment nodes as empty

(Reading the spec)

John: in-line content is well defined in the XML spec, so white space and/or comment nodes will be seen as in-line content

john elaborates about the difference between an end tag on the same line and the next line

nick: It might be hard for someone to realize what the problem is
... We don't need to fix it now, but maybe for the future, if the rest of the group thinks it isn't that a big deal it is fine for me

(group decides __not__ to put it on the future features list

Steven: I will send an e-mail thanking him for the comment, but that we will not change the spec because it is to late, and the error will be clear
... the processing rules will be easier, bcz we can use the XML definition of content

Updating FF Plugin report for 8.1.6.b

Nick: This is done

Problem with interpreting xsi:nil

<wiecha> http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#model-prop-required

Charlie: Look at section 6.1.3

(Charlie walks us through the spec)

scribe: Explains what xsi:nil means

<John_Boyer> A schema may indicate that an element is "nillable", at which point an element may have xsi:nil is true when the element content is empty

Charlie: rule 2 can't be true for xsi:nill equal to true if schema rules are applied

John: We wanted to define what non empty means, the additional statement about xsi:nil was added to clarify that an element with xsi:nil to true with empty content doesn't satisfy the required property.
... I understand that it is hard test, because you can't pass schema validation for xsi:nil to true and have content

Charlie: We don't want to change the meaning of required, to allow xsi:nil to true as passing the required contsraint

John: What is the purpose of the required property?Is it that the user has to answer a question, or has to answer it with a none-empty string (like it is now)

Charlie: We should change point 1 to a note
... explain that xsi:nil has no impact on the required property

John: Steven can we treat this as an editorial note

Steven: yes

Charlie: Still concerned about how xsi:nil is treated in XForms

<John_Boyer> ACTION: John to write clarifying note in 6.1.3 to explain the non-impact of xsi:nil true on the definition of required MIP, rather than having the two rules for non-empty definition [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-forms-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - John

<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jkugelma, jboyer)

<scribe> ACTION: Nick to remove test 6.1.3.b and update the implentation reports [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-forms-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-540 - Remove test 6.1.3.b and update the implentation reports [on Nick Van Den Bleeken - due 2009-05-20].

John: So we only need to make the changes for targetid and targetref

<scribe> Topic : Test suite changes

<unl> not yet

<unl> sorry

<unl> next week

John: Did you add the license to the test suite

Nick: Yes

<unl> yes

John: Uli did you fixed to non XMLnes of the test suite

Uli: no will do for next week

John: We will knock down the targetid and targetref this week

FtF agenda and rechartering

Steven: Regarding the FtF there would be an XForms event, but it is only an evening event, this my give me a problem for traveling

John: I'm concerned that we will get a good turnup

Nick: can't commit at coming to the FtF at this moment

John: Mark will turn up, the evening event will be enough for Charlie, but that is three
... Should we decide for doing a virtual FtF

Steven: If we are only with 3-4 is it worth the travel

John: Steven can you attend a virtual FtF

Steven: Yes, no problem, I surely can attend a virtual FtF

Uli: I will come to the FtF
... I can attend a virtual FtF

Steven: I think we need XForms 2 to get more members

John: It is pretty big risk at this point to go for a real FtF
... I think we should switch to a virtual FtF
... It are the 5 hours
... We should go for a virtual FtF
... OK then we are doing a virtual FtF

- DRAFT -

Forms Working Group Teleconference

13 May 2009

Attendees

Contents

XForms 1.1 Implementation report

None XML content in xf:instance

Updating FF Plugin report for 8.1.6.b

Problem with interpreting xsi:nil

FtF agenda and rechartering

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output