16:32:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #forms
16:32:07 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-forms-irc
16:32:15 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make log public
16:32:45 <John_Boyer> Meeting: Forms WG Face to Face Meeting 2 Nov 2009
16:32:54 <nick> nick has joined #forms
16:35:02 <John_Boyer> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/FtF_2009_11_TPAC_Agenda
16:35:24 <John_Boyer> John_Boyer has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/FtF_2009_11_TPAC_Agenda
16:44:08 <wiecha> wiecha has joined #forms
16:57:04 <wiecha> zakim, code?
16:57:21 <Steven> Steven has joined #forms
16:58:24 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #forms
16:58:27 <wiecha> zakim, code?
16:58:27 <Zakim> sorry, wiecha, I don't know what conference this is
16:58:33 <wiecha> zakim, this will be forms
16:58:33 <Zakim> ok, wiecha; I see HTML_Forms(TPAC)11:30AM scheduled to start 28 minutes ago
16:58:37 <wiecha> zakim, code?
16:58:38 <Zakim> the conference code is 36767 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), wiecha
16:59:14 <Zakim> HTML_Forms(TPAC)11:30AM has now started
16:59:21 <Zakim> +[IBM]
16:59:24 <wiecha> zakim, [IBM] is wiecha
16:59:24 <Zakim> +wiecha; got it
17:02:53 <Steven> zakim, dial Suite_B
17:02:53 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
17:02:55 <Zakim> +Suite_B
17:02:56 <Steven> aha
17:10:14 <Steven> trackbot, start telecon
17:10:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:10:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be HTML_Forms
17:10:18 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see HTML_Forms(TPAC)11:30AM already started
17:10:19 <trackbot> Meeting: Forms Working Group Teleconference
17:10:19 <trackbot> Date: 02 November 2009
17:11:00 <Steven> Present: Charlie(remote), Leigh, Erik, Uli, Steven, Nick, John
17:11:45 <Steven> Meeting: Forms Face to Face @ TPAC, Santa Clara, CA, USA
17:11:59 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
17:11:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-forms-minutes.html Steven
17:12:28 <Steven> Chair: John
17:12:42 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
17:12:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-forms-minutes.html Steven
17:17:01 <Steven> Scribe: Steven
17:17:34 <John_Boyer> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/FtF_2009_11_TPAC_Agenda
17:17:34 <ebruchez> ebruchez has joined #forms
17:18:08 <unl> unl has joined #forms
17:18:21 <John_Boyer> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/
17:18:23 <Steven> John: We want to produce a fpwd of XForms 1.2
17:19:19 <Steven> ... hopefully before the end of the year, in this charter period\
17:19:25 <Steven> ... thin spec
17:20:40 <Steven> Leigh: We should brainstorm on how we want to do that
17:21:06 <Steven> John: The problem last time was that there really was a lot to do, that we don't have to do now
17:22:06 <Steven> ... we need to limit the requirements
17:23:17 <klotz> klotz has joined #forms
17:23:24 <Steven> Erik: We need to brainstorm on new members
17:24:27 <Steven> Steven: Call some names out
17:24:52 <Steven> All: Cordys, EMC
17:24:59 <Steven> Uli: The French guy
17:25:26 <Steven> Steven: We could invite him, Alain Couthures?
17:26:25 <Steven> Steven: The Biritish company, name escapes me at the moment
17:26:34 <Steven> s/Bir/Br
17:26:56 <Steven> Present: Raman
17:27:13 <Steven> s/Present:/Present+
17:27:33 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
17:27:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-forms-minutes.html Steven
17:28:08 <Steven> Erik: Mark and/or Paul
17:32:26 <Steven> s/01name escapes me at the moment/Jadu
17:32:55 <wiecha> maybe the amplesdk guys
17:37:40 <Steven> Steven: Yahoo as a company idea
17:38:01 <Steven> John: Sun/Oracle for ODF
17:45:53 <ebruchez> ebruchez has joined #forms
17:47:31 <wiecha> zakim, mute me
17:47:31 <Zakim> wiecha should now be muted
17:57:24 <raman> raman has joined #forms
17:58:30 <Zakim> -wiecha
18:14:28 <klotz> http://gcn.com/Articles/2009/10/29/White-House-Drupal.aspx?Page=2 Obama supports RDFa
18:27:36 <unl> re starting an OASIS TC: "Any group of at least Minimum Membership shall be authorized to begin a TC by submitting to the OASIS TC Administrator the following items, written in English and provided in electronic form as plain text. No information other than these items may be included in the proposal." see http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2008-06-19.php#formation
18:34:07 <Zakim> -Suite_B
18:34:09 <Zakim> HTML_Forms(TPAC)11:30AM has ended
18:34:10 <Zakim> Attendees were wiecha, Suite_B
19:03:08 <ebruchez> ebruchez has joined #forms
19:04:29 <klotz> klotz has joined #forms
19:04:34 <nick> nick has joined #forms
19:04:52 <Zakim> HTML_Forms(TPAC)11:30AM has now started
19:04:58 <Zakim> +[IBM]
19:05:01 <wiecha> zakim, [IBM] is wiecha
19:05:01 <Zakim> +wiecha; got it
19:05:19 <John_Boyer> John_Boyer has joined #forms
19:05:44 <unl> unl has joined #forms
19:05:55 <Steven> Steven has joined #forms
19:07:00 <Steven> zakim, dial Suite_B
19:07:00 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
19:07:02 <Zakim> +Suite_B
19:09:31 <markbirbeck> markbirbeck has joined #forms
19:13:23 <wiecha> zakim, mute me
19:13:23 <Zakim> wiecha should now be muted
19:16:41 <Steven> [Long unminuted discussion of chartering alternatives]
19:17:29 <Steven> Uli: I prefer FtF to virtual meetings; they seem much more productive
19:20:21 <Steven> rrsagent, here?
19:20:21 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-forms-irc#T19-20-21
19:30:11 <raman> raman has joined #forms
19:32:13 <Zakim> -wiecha
19:32:40 <klotz> should I take over scribing?
19:33:04 <klotz> doesn't john need to type something?
19:33:15 <Steven> Scribe: Leigh
19:33:22 <klotz> ah I thought it had to be a channel op.
19:33:22 <Steven> scribenick: klotz
19:33:29 <Steven> nope
19:33:44 <klotz> John: Let's discuss the possible candidates for XForms 1.2
19:33:57 <klotz> John: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/Category/XForms12
19:34:11 <klotz> John: Can we focus on the bigger, harder issues here?
19:34:27 <klotz> Nick: I'd prefer to finish some of the ones that are almost done because we need to finish things to move forward.
19:34:47 <klotz> Raman: How about components in XForms?  That's a complex piece, like external models.
19:34:50 <Steven> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/CategoryXForms12
19:34:51 <klotz> John: That's a 2.0 issue.
19:35:08 <Steven> s|/XF|XF
19:35:40 <klotz> Erik: We've done a but of work with components ourselves; it's amazing what you can do.  
19:36:11 <klotz> Raman: It's important to have a good component story, especially if XForms is an authoring environment.
19:36:42 <klotz> Erik: We used components to expose YUI through the XForms data and event model; it makes applications easier.
19:37:18 <klotz> John: Do your components have models?
19:37:36 <klotz> Erik: Yes, encapsulated.  Based on XBL.  You can write a multi-model thing bound to data and events.
19:37:46 <klotz> Erik: And appearance.
19:37:57 <klotz> Uli: That's 2.0.
19:38:35 <klotz> Erik: Yes, it's a big piece.  We started a year and a half ago.  We've been amazed by the potential.  It is like when Charlie did this years ago.
19:38:55 <wiecha> we're still interested!
19:39:10 <klotz> Steven: It's important to pick up on the things our implementors are doing like JSON to the instance.  If it's already been done, then maybe it's not 2.0.  There's no research.
19:39:34 <klotz> Steven: Or maybe even not a 1.2?
19:40:02 <klotz> Leigh: Or maybe publish a note or a submission.
19:40:10 <klotz> Steven: Is it based on XBL 1 or 2?
19:40:43 <klotz> Erik: XBL 2 but not compliant.  We use foo:bar CSS selectors for binding.  The hard part is with the XForms boundary crossing.
19:41:22 <klotz> Erik: You want SNB, value-changed dispatch, current context access, all from the component.
19:41:38 <klotz> Steven: XBL is used often with XForms.  Maybe we should consider making it a core technology.
19:42:08 <klotz> Erik: Our impression was that XBL 2 didn't support id resolution, so we used XPath and ID resolution going through.
19:42:36 <klotz> Raman: XBL2 doesn't have implementations.
19:42:51 <klotz> Steven: XBL3?
19:43:00 <klotz> Steven: I would have thought XPath selectors were more suitable.
19:43:24 <klotz> Erik: That's not the hard part.  Even just static bindings are useful.
19:43:56 <klotz> John: It seems important to publish something soon with low-hanging fruit.
19:44:49 <klotz> John: CaseFunction, @context
19:46:39 <klotz> Leigh: Is the namespace changing?
19:46:47 <klotz> John: No, the version number feature in the model.
19:51:02 <klotz> Erik: We should be courageous and cut out things we can't quickly agree on.
19:51:18 <klotz> John: Maybe components is 1.3 and some other feature is 1.4.
19:51:35 <klotz> Leigh: I think the thin spec has worked well.
19:53:28 <klotz> TV: In practice, because of the complexity of software, big things never get implemented all at once.
19:53:48 <klotz> Erik: So components might benefit from being a separate document.  If you want to push a core spec forward, ok.
19:54:05 <klotz> s/TV:/Raman:/
19:54:19 <klotz> Raman: Do you need core XForms changes for components?
19:54:23 <Zakim> -Suite_B
19:54:24 <Zakim> HTML_Forms(TPAC)11:30AM has ended
19:54:25 <klotz> Erik: I don't think so.
19:54:26 <Zakim> Attendees were wiecha, Suite_B
19:54:55 <Steven> zakim, dial Suite_B
19:54:55 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
19:54:56 <Zakim> HTML_Forms(TPAC)11:30AM has now started
19:54:58 <Zakim> +Suite_B
19:55:25 <klotz> Raman: So publish your components as a new thing.
19:56:09 <Steven> zakim, drop suite_b
19:56:09 <Zakim> Suite_B is being disconnected
19:56:10 <Zakim> HTML_Forms(TPAC)11:30AM has ended
19:56:10 <Zakim> Attendees were Suite_B
19:56:17 <Steven> zakim, dial suite_b
19:56:17 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
19:56:18 <Zakim> HTML_Forms(TPAC)11:30AM has now started
19:56:20 <Zakim> +Suite_b
19:56:35 <klotz> John: Some of these things require core vocabulary changes.
19:57:28 <klotz> Leigh: I think vocabulary is easy; behavior is harder
19:57:35 <klotz> John: You have to chnage the schema
19:57:42 <klotz> Leigh: Just add extension slots to the schema
19:58:10 <klotz> Erik: To add variables you need to change the processing model: "Variables are evaluated during refresh."  You then publish that as a diff.
19:59:01 <klotz> John: We do need to get back to full specs, not thin specs.
19:59:28 <klotz> Leigh: If you use a modularity framework you can publish the small documents.
19:59:30 <John_Boyer> for W3C
20:00:45 <klotz> John: Can we discuss core or extension for each of these?
20:00:54 <klotz> Erik: @context everywhere seems to be core.
20:01:22 <klotz> Leigh: Adding it to SNB could be a module, but what about the behavior?
20:01:30 <klotz> Nick: In  a module
20:01:44 <klotz> Erik: Right now it's in insert and delete.  We could move it into SNB.
20:02:11 <klotz> John: Why not an XForms 1.1 Generalized Context Module?
20:02:23 <klotz> Nick: It's more work to create the modules.  
20:02:34 <klotz> John: We tried to modularize the whole spec, though.
20:02:50 <klotz> Nick: We would need to have the Context spec say what it overrides.
20:02:53 <Zakim> +[IBM]
20:02:55 <klotz> John: Yes, but it's a set spec.
20:03:00 <wiecha> zakim, [IBM] is wiecha
20:03:00 <Zakim> +wiecha; got it
20:03:05 <klotz> Nick: It's doable but...
20:03:08 <klotz> John: How many are there?
20:03:22 <klotz> John: For context, my original reaction was it was hard, but there are only 4 spaces.
20:03:33 <klotz> Leigh: It's essentially a very, very small thin spec.
20:03:46 <klotz> Erik: It's doable
20:04:20 <klotz> Raman: We talked about the exslt equivalent
20:04:51 <Zakim> -wiecha
20:05:01 <Steven> zakim, who is on the phone?
20:05:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see Suite_b
20:05:05 <Zakim> +[IBM]
20:05:09 <Steven> zakim, unmute suite_b
20:05:09 <Zakim> Suite_b was not muted, Steven
20:05:12 <klotz> John: Dialog is a beautiful module.  
20:05:23 <Zakim> -[IBM]
20:05:40 <Zakim> +[IBM]
20:05:54 <Zakim> -[IBM]
20:05:58 <Steven> we hear you
20:06:05 <Steven> I think the problem may be at our end
20:06:18 <Steven> we're going to lunch now
20:06:21 <wiecha> k
20:07:08 <Steven> l8r
20:07:15 <wiecha> bye
20:08:53 <Zakim> -Suite_b
20:08:57 <Zakim> HTML_Forms(TPAC)11:30AM has ended
20:08:59 <Zakim> Attendees were Suite_b, wiecha, [IBM]
21:11:02 <nick> nick has joined #forms
21:12:13 <ebruchez> ebruchez has joined #forms
21:14:07 <unl> unl has joined #forms
21:15:52 <Steven> Steven has joined #forms
21:16:31 <Steven> zakim, who is here?
21:16:31 <Zakim> apparently HTML_Forms(TPAC)11:30AM has ended, Steven
21:16:32 <Zakim> On IRC I see Steven, unl, ebruchez, nick, markbirbeck, Zakim, wiecha, RRSAgent, trackbot
21:16:40 <Steven> zakim, dial suite_b
21:16:40 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
21:16:41 <Zakim> HTML_Forms(TPAC)11:30AM has now started
21:16:41 <Zakim> +Dialer
21:16:44 <Zakim> -Dialer
21:16:45 <Zakim> +Suite_b
21:16:54 <klotz> klotz has joined #forms
21:17:50 <John_Boyer> John_Boyer has joined #forms
21:22:16 <John_Boyer> zakim, who is here?
21:22:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see Suite_b
21:22:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see John_Boyer, klotz, Steven, unl, ebruchez, nick, markbirbeck, Zakim, wiecha, RRSAgent, trackbot
21:24:24 <klotz> John: Nick, which topics did you want to cover?
21:25:45 <klotz> Nick: XPath 2.0
21:26:07 <klotz> Erik: Extension functions
21:26:17 <klotz> Uli: 1.2 or 2.0?
21:26:48 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
21:26:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-forms-minutes.html Steven
21:27:50 <Zakim> +[IBM]
21:27:54 <klotz> http://www.mantrapaloalto.com/home.htm
21:27:55 <wiecha> zakim, [IBM] is wiecha
21:27:55 <Zakim> +wiecha; got it
21:28:05 <klotz> Uli: optional model
21:28:33 <klotz> Uli: But maybe not a good module.
21:28:51 <klotz> Leigh: If it works, ok.
21:28:59 <klotz> John: I felt the same way but it's OK if it works I think.
21:29:08 <klotz> Uli: What if they need to work together?
21:29:25 <klotz> John: We need something more than hub and spokes; we can start from some and then rev the core.
21:30:04 <nick> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XPath_2.0
21:30:47 <Zakim> -wiecha
21:30:50 <klotz> John: We may have half a dozen examples before we run into that problem.
21:30:51 <Zakim> +[IBM]
21:30:57 <klotz> Uli: I'm not convinced.
21:31:01 <wiecha> zakim, [IBM] is wiecha
21:31:01 <Zakim> +wiecha; got it
21:31:09 <klotz> Erik: Specific ideas?  Submission simplification?
21:31:15 <wiecha> zakim, mute me
21:31:15 <Zakim> wiecha should now be muted
21:31:23 <klotz> Erik: Specific ideas?  Submission simplification?
21:31:58 <klotz> John: We'll change the language in modules.  But we need velocity on new features and refactoring submission isn't it.  Maybe components or dialogs.
21:32:31 <wiecha> zakim, unmute me
21:32:31 <Zakim> wiecha should no longer be muted
21:32:43 <wiecha> how about patterns?
21:32:46 <klotz> Uli: When do we prioritize?
21:32:47 <wiecha> could be low hanging fruit
21:32:50 <klotz> John: That's the 1.2/2.0 list.
21:33:38 <klotz> John: Some are redesign.  We decided to focus on easier deliverables to get FPWD out.
21:34:02 <klotz> Erik: It's getting tight for that.
21:34:07 <klotz> John: We can work on it.
21:34:17 <klotz> Nick: We can just check them off when we write the document and titles.
21:34:43 <klotz> Charlie: The pattern work as well; master/detail, repeat, wiznav.
21:35:11 <klotz> Leigh: That may turn into components.
21:35:22 <klotz> Charlie: I wouldn't tie to components.
21:35:36 <klotz> John: I thought it was new markup and new processing; not as log hanging.
21:35:47 <John_Boyer> s/log/low
21:35:52 <raman> raman has joined #forms
21:37:16 <klotz> Leigh: How about publishing modules for dialog and components
21:37:20 <klotz> John: As FPWD?
21:37:41 <klotz> Leigh: As modules FPWD for XForms 1.2
21:37:53 <klotz> John: We need a shortname.
21:39:44 <klotz> Leigh: xmlschema has xmlschema-2, xmlschema11-2 etc.  
21:40:46 <klotz> John: OK.  So technically these could be specs.
21:41:46 <klotz> Leigh: Pick dialog and then another one that's already implemented, say components.
21:41:50 <klotz> John: Or extension functions.
21:41:56 <klotz> Nick: XPath 2.0 support.
21:41:58 <nick> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XPath_2.0
21:42:10 <klotz> * XPath 2.0 support
21:42:25 <klotz> Nick: We add XPath 2.0 support but keep 1.0 support.
21:42:43 <klotz> Nick: You can put it on the model.
21:45:12 <klotz> Nick: Supports xpath 1.0 compat mode.
21:45:43 <klotz> John: Maybe we need versions for modules.
21:46:47 <klotz> Uli: We need to move XPath to a module.
21:46:53 <klotz> John: We have a module already.
21:47:02 <klotz> Erik: We're not going to modularize the whole spec.
21:48:13 <klotz> s/Erik/Nick/
21:48:31 <klotz> John: Submission says module, but XPath doesn't.
21:48:43 <klotz> Uli: I think it would be hard to grasp for readers.
21:48:57 <klotz> John: Chapter 7 is the module; it just doesn't say "The XPath Expressions Module."
21:49:05 <klotz> John: We can republish it as 2.0.
21:51:15 <klotz> Leigh: So what breaks if just publish http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XPath_2.0 as xforms12-xpath2 FPWD?  What breaks in the rest of xforms11 and how do we publish those changes?
21:51:31 <klotz> Nick: I have a table of function changes, mostly parameter types.
21:52:17 <klotz> Erik: 8.11 has a note.  There are going to be more.
21:52:32 <klotz> Nick: Also supporting sequences.  There may be more changes needed throughout the spec.
21:52:56 <klotz> John: Are you still assuming that in an xf:bind that the result of the expression is a nodeset?
21:53:11 <klotz> Nick: A sequence of nodes and not a set of nodes is how I now interpret it.  Not in document order.
21:53:44 <klotz> Erik: A nodeset will have exactly one node once.  In XPath 2.0 you can have a sequence with repeated nodes.
21:54:05 <klotz> Nick: They are always in document order in XPath 1.0.
21:54:08 <klotz> Leigh: Even in a union?
21:54:13 <klotz> Nick: Yes.  They are interleaved.
21:54:57 <klotz> Erik: Except for attributes (for which order is not preserved) in Xpath 1.0, ...
21:55:10 <klotz> Nick: In a union you can combine nodesets in document order.
21:56:27 <klotz> http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/940 says XPath 1.0 nodesets are unordered; XSLT ordered them.
21:57:09 <klotz> Erik: I can use a sequence that iterates over 4 items, two of which are the same node.  So you can repeat over 4 items, 2 of which are the same.
21:57:16 <klotz> Erik: We need to decide for MIPs.
21:58:07 <klotz> John: There is language which says that the xforms-rebuild the first step is to evaluate the nodeset and select an xpath nodeset.  This is outside of chapter 7. We could specify a processing rule for handling sequences.
21:58:41 <klotz> Erik: The only issue we have found is bind.  We can't have two bindings of the same.
21:58:59 <klotz> Uli: You can but you just get an exception.
21:59:04 <klotz> Leigh: OK, so just don't do that?
21:59:20 <klotz> Erik: Charlie made an argument about validity.  
21:59:35 <klotz> Leigh: So we add the "multi-node binding rule."
21:59:48 <klotz> John: Yes, that's what I'm asking.  We boil it down to a nodeset.
22:00:32 <klotz> Leigh: bind/@nodeset would use the MNBR but repeat/@nodeset wouldn't.
22:00:46 <klotz> Uli: How is a nodeset defined?
22:00:51 <klotz> Erik: ...
22:01:05 <klotz> Nick: A sequence of node*. 
22:02:25 <klotz> Nick: We also need to look at attribute naming.  Maybe it should not be 'nodeset'
22:03:26 <klotz> Nick: Maybe we just say you can't have the node in twice.
22:03:56 <klotz> John: This is an answer to the question of why we can't just republish chapter 7.
22:05:09 <klotz> Leigh: If we have an answer to these questions we can publish that as chapter 1 of the FPWD and then chapter 2 is "replace ch7 with this."
22:06:00 <klotz> John: A bind with a sequence of nodes and no MIPs could be a binding site for a repeat.
22:06:06 <klotz> Erik: So binding exception does a good job.
22:07:16 <klotz> Nick: I restructured evaluation context using the XPath 2 ideas.  It's clearer now.
22:07:34 <klotz> Nick: It is bulleted, and shows static and dynamic context.
22:08:16 <klotz> Nick: Variables are out of scope for this document.
22:08:34 <klotz> John: "signature" isn't used in XPath 1.0.
22:08:47 <klotz> Nick: It's an XPath 2.0 term but if you put them side-by-side you can match the concepts.
22:09:47 <klotz> Nick: You have to define the static and dynamic context properties to integrate XPath 2.0 and I have defined them here as bullet items.
22:10:45 <klotz> John: How does the model ask for the xpath version?
22:10:52 <klotz> Nick: I added a model/@xpath-version.
22:11:11 <klotz> John: That's back to the module version issue.
22:11:18 <klotz> Nick: It specifies the xpath version, not the module version.
22:12:07 <klotz> John: so model/@xpath-version="1" means XPath 1.0 compat mode?
22:12:15 <klotz> Erik: Which does not work perfectly.
22:12:22 <klotz> John: But is elsewhere specified.
22:14:57 <klotz> Leigh: According to http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/940 XPath 1.0 nodesets are unordered; only XSLT defines an order.
22:15:01 <klotz> Nick: Right, I forgot.
22:15:18 <klotz> Erik: What do we say?
22:15:50 <klotz> John: In 3.3.1 we talk about schemas.  
22:16:17 <klotz> Nick: The in-scope schema definitions are from ch5.
22:16:23 <klotz> John: And the ones from the model, in ch3.
22:16:41 <klotz> Erik: We don't use the schema-aware version of Saxon.
22:16:58 <klotz> Nick: you can cast them
22:17:15 <klotz> Erik: For a simpleType such as my:zipcode, we don't expose that to XPath expressions.
22:17:32 <klotz> Nick: You can use isCastableAs
22:17:45 <klotz> Erik: We may need a distinction between SA and non-SA versions.
22:18:20 <klotz> Erik: The built-in simple types are easy to implement.  But if you have full type support it's harder.
22:18:55 <Steven> rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight
22:19:10 <klotz> John: Here it's limited to ch5 definitions.   So why can't we add form-defined ones?  If we allow that, then the question is should we use the xforms type mip?
22:19:25 <klotz> Nick: We do that as an option.
22:20:03 <klotz> s/Nick/Erik/
22:20:33 <klotz> Erik: That causes some problems though, which is why it is an option for us.  You'd like to use xpath expressions in if.
22:21:14 <klotz> Erik: But an XPath engine running on a node, the value might not be true or false.
22:21:46 <klotz> Erik: We return an untyped value if it's not in the value space, else a typed value.
22:22:13 <klotz> John: And you can dynamically decide the datatype of name test?
22:23:05 <klotz> Erik: Yes, it's a strongly typed object (boolean, integer, custom) .  Dynamically you can ask and check.
22:23:29 <klotz> Nick: if the function was expecting a boolean it will fail, or will convert to a boolean.
22:24:05 <klotz> John: If we had a node called hasInsurancePolicy and do bind/@type to boolean and also use a relevance calculation that collects the policy info...
22:24:15 <klotz> John: ... how do we write that relevance rule?
22:24:19 <klotz> Erik: That's what we do.
22:24:33 <klotz> Erik: relevant="../hasInsurancePolicy" 
22:24:43 <klotz> Erik: If it doesn't have a type it will always be true as it's an existence test.
22:25:05 <klotz> John: Unfortunately, that leads to a major problem.
22:25:26 <klotz> John: If the XForms type MIP info can be fed into expression evaluations, we can create dependencies on the order of evaluation of binds.
22:26:10 <klotz> Erik: Yes, good point.  We run type assignments before running calculates in order to avoid that problem.
22:26:25 <klotz> John: It's not been a problem so far because of static types.
22:26:55 <klotz> Erik: We have xsi:type but it's static.
22:26:59 <klotz> Leigh: it's not static.
22:27:08 <klotz> Erik: Oh, calculate.  I doubt anyone implements it.
22:27:50 <klotz> Erik: When the variable is evaluated, if the type is mismatched it will get a dynamic exception.  So the exception cannot access a node of expected type.  In XForms we can do assignments ahead of time and it's not an error for a node to be invaliud.
22:28:15 <klotz> John: We don't describe xsi:type processing.
22:29:59 <klotz> John: That's why we don't have MIP access functions, to avoid the dependencies.
22:30:14 <klotz> Erik: If you use valid() inside relevant() it will not be up to date.
22:30:28 <klotz> Erik: You run into tricks.  The declarative magic ought to workj.
22:30:34 <klotz> s/j/
22:30:49 <klotz> John: It's on the todo list to consoldate recalc and revalidate
22:30:59 <klotz> s/todo/2.0/
22:31:13 <klotz> Erik: it's very convenient to use the type info in xpath 2.0.
22:31:36 <klotz> Erik: You get the simple types.  If you don't have them then you'll use cast all the types.
22:32:41 <klotz> John: We need to support the schema types for our customers because many rely solely on schemas for validation.
22:32:46 <klotz> Erik: That could be static.
22:34:54 <klotz> John: it's not just types, it's type assignments.
22:35:12 <klotz> John: my:phoneNumber is one thing but the xsd:boolean is necessary.
22:35:31 <klotz> Nick: I never wrote down that nodes get type information.  It isn't part of the evaluation context.
22:36:35 <klotz> John: does xpath 2.0 let you give types to nodes?
22:36:39 <klotz> Erik: It's part of the data model.
22:37:04 <klotz> John: So we don't say what the data model consists of.
22:37:11 <klotz> Nick: I need to add that.
22:37:22 <klotz> John: So where do we allow nodes to get their types from?
22:37:50 <klotz> Nick: is it a problem to get the types from schema or xsi:type
22:37:59 <klotz> Nick: for simpleTypes ok but i don't know for custom types.
22:38:12 <klotz> John: Sounds like an editorial node for FPWD.
22:40:18 <klotz> Nick: It says we require at least Unicode codepoint collation.
22:41:46 <klotz> Nick: We don't say what the document function does.
22:42:34 <klotz> Nick: And standard collections.
22:42:51 <klotz> John: What is a document in xpath 2.0?
22:42:58 <klotz> Erik: A document node.
22:43:31 <klotz> John: Can you use "."?
22:43:39 <klotz> Leigh: In XSLT document() gets you the XSLT document.
22:43:54 <klotz> John: So do you get the host document or the instance?
22:44:17 <klotz> Erik: It would be the stylesheet, or the host document, but I'm not sure you'd mandate it.
22:44:30 <klotz> John: Steven you talked about applying calculation to the document.
22:46:24 <klotz> Erik: You could say that document("") could return the host document, but it would be a big burden.
22:46:35 <klotz> Nick: You'd need the live instances.
22:46:40 <klotz> Erik: Not necessarily.
22:47:22 <klotz> John: "When a constraint is blown" "I want to turn the text red."
22:47:43 <klotz> Erik: We use AVTs.  class="foo-{xpath}"
22:47:57 <klotz> John: They want to put the bindings together as a collection.
22:48:04 <klotz> valid, color.
22:48:46 <klotz> Leigh: Sounds like a mixing of levels.
22:49:32 <klotz> John: Steven wanted to be able to modify the host document.
22:49:43 <klotz> Steven: Sebastian was close to doing that in his implementation.
22:49:52 <klotz> John: So I would move information out into presentation layer.
22:50:16 <klotz> John: It's a declarative version of class.
22:51:08 <klotz> Leigh: It seems like a good use case but even the AJAX people hide the DOM modification from you as much as possible.
22:51:31 <klotz> Nick: It's hard to know when to send over changes in a server side system.
22:52:01 <klotz> Leigh: Erik's AVT sounds attractive because you then know where the flex points are.
22:52:17 <klotz> Nick: The functions library.
22:52:21 <klotz> Nick: Functions will be in the xf: namespace.
22:52:29 <klotz> Nick: That should say xpath2 only.
22:53:15 <klotz> John: We also said we'd make them available under the namespace to xpath 1.0 processors.
22:54:11 <klotz> John: We need to sort out the may/should/must here.
22:56:48 <klotz> John: the unqualified names should still work in xpath 1.0 though.
22:57:05 <klotz> John: Can you change the element namespace default?
22:57:50 <klotz> Nick: You can in xslt.  
22:57:53 <klotz> Leigh: Can we add it?
22:57:59 <klotz> Nick: it is per element and inherits.
22:58:55 <klotz> Erik: Default namespaces are evil.  I use them all the time.  Last time I used them I had a bug.
22:59:39 <klotz> Nick: It's useful in the saxon evaluate function.
23:00:51 <klotz> Erik: Would it be scoped lexically or by model?
23:01:43 <klotz> Nick: Do we add it?
23:01:51 <klotz> Leigh: We should add it but put in a niote.
23:01:56 <klotz> s/niote/note/
23:12:37 <Zakim> -wiecha
23:12:54 <Zakim> -Suite_b
23:12:55 <Zakim> HTML_Forms(TPAC)11:30AM has ended
23:12:57 <Zakim> Attendees were Dialer, Suite_b, wiecha
23:16:27 <klotz> Leigh: Why not just publish this as xforms12-xpath2 and not mention xpath1 in it at all.   Either implement it or don't.
23:18:03 <klotz> John: But we have to thick spec it at some point.
23:19:19 <unl> *is increasingly unkindly requesting a combined bio and coffee break*
23:20:18 <klotz> Leigh: maybe.
23:20:31 <klotz> Nick: I dont' want to have to take the xpath 1.0 out of this.
23:20:44 <klotz> John: We need to re-write it anyway.
23:20:57 <klotz> Leigh: Yes, just publish the xpath 2 only as fpwd.
23:32:02 <raman> raman has joined #forms
23:42:15 <Steven> Steven has joined #forms
23:43:11 <klotz> klotz has joined #forms
23:44:35 <unl> unl has joined #forms
23:45:07 <Zakim> Zakim has left #forms
23:47:49 <John_Boyer> John_Boyer has joined #forms
23:48:22 <ebruchez> scribe: ebruchez
23:48:36 <ebruchez> scribe: Erik
23:48:39 <ebruchez> scribenick: ebruchez
23:49:01 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
23:49:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-forms-minutes.html Steven
23:51:43 <ebruchez> Nick: (will work on specxml for XPath 2.0 support)
23:52:37 <ebruchez> John: With XPath 2.0, should we put avt(), etc. in a namespace?
23:53:01 <John_Boyer> s/avt/avg
23:53:11 <John_Boyer> s/namespace?/namespace.
23:53:48 <Steven> i/John: We want to produce a fpwd of XForms 1.2/Topic: Ongoing work
23:53:54 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
23:53:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-forms-minutes.html Steven
23:54:33 <ebruchez> Erik: So is the plan to put all XForms functions in a namespace? Or just the ones that conflict with XPath 2.0?
23:54:51 <plh> plh has joined #forms
23:55:06 <ebruchez> Nick: Yes, plan is put all of them in ns, but implementors can additionally decide to put them in null ns for backward compatibility purposes.
23:56:51 <ebruchez> Nick: (discussion dateTime conversion)
23:57:18 <ebruchez> John: We say that default type for nodes is string
23:58:06 <ebruchez> Nick: dateTime can be converted from a string
23:59:12 <Steven> i/John: Let's discuss the possible candidates for XForms 1.2/Topic: XForms 1.2
23:59:20 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
23:59:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-forms-minutes.html Steven
23:59:33 <ebruchez> Leigh: if we populate instances with datatypes, we will have issues with empty values?
00:00:59 <ebruchez> Erik: (explaining what XPath 2.0 expects when dealing with nodes' typed values)
00:01:42 <Steven> i/Nick: XPath 2.0 support./Topic: XPath 2.0 Support
00:01:48 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
00:01:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-forms-minutes.html Steven
00:04:24 <ebruchez> Leigh: XForms has mutable data, which is a difficulty compared with XSLT 2.0.
00:07:18 <ebruchez> We might consider switching default type from string to untypedAtomic.
00:08:18 <ebruchez> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#casting
00:10:11 <ebruchez> Erik: string and untypedAtomic mostly behave the same as far as casting is concerned
00:14:42 <ebruchez> Nick: I used item()* in the choose() function.
00:19:10 <ebruchez> Nick: Open question about sequences. But w/ xf:repeat, then it would be good to support a sequence of items.
00:19:52 <ebruchez> Erik: Might be some consequences, e.g. items="(1 to 10)"
00:20:03 <ebruchez> John: What would be the point of a group bound to number?
00:21:50 <ebruchez> Erik: Not saying you should bind a group to a number, probably not much meaning.
00:22:37 <ebruchez> John: (XPath 2.0 questions)
00:24:19 <ebruchez> Nick and John: (discussing implications of bind resolution within xf:repeat/@items.
00:25:03 <ebruchez> Nick: You can't bind a MIP to an atomic type.
00:25:34 <ebruchez> John: Or, since you can't use the value, just ignore the MIP.
00:27:39 <John_Boyer> mainly, shouldn't do bind element on items, only nodesets, so bind attr on UI element will still refer to nodesets
00:29:54 <ebruchez> Erik: Are we thinking about calling a new attribute @items?
00:30:06 <ebruchez> John: Not necessarily, might pick different name.
00:31:32 <ebruchez> Erik: Concerned about the number of attributes.
00:31:45 <ebruchez> John: We already have "items" in XForms, so not such a good name.
00:32:29 <John_Boyer> but we also have a select
00:32:39 <John_Boyer> already too
00:33:39 <ebruchez> Erik: Can't use @value for xf:repeat.
00:33:59 <ebruchez> Leigh: Could you use xf:input/@select?
00:34:11 <ebruchez> John: No, single-node binding would still be @ref.
00:36:34 <ebruchez> John: E.g. <group select="..."><input ref="...">: what would that get us? Not very useful.
00:39:09 <ebruchez> Leigh: Could we define @ref to mean @selct + MIPs + events + ...
00:39:33 <ebruchez> s/selct/select
00:41:13 <ebruchez> Leigh: Would xf:setvalue/@value convert to a string?
00:43:39 <ebruchez> Erik: Are we accepting dups on xf:repeat/@nodeset?
00:43:56 <ebruchez> Nick: Yes. With xf:bind/@nodeset, you get a binding exception.
00:49:11 <John_Boyer> but with xf:repeat/@nodeset the repeat would just iterate over the xpath 2.0 items in the order given.
00:53:21 <klotz> xqueseme: Mozilla XQuery extension using Saxon: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/XQuery
01:01:49 <unl> unl has joined #forms
01:01:51 <John_Boyer> action: Nick to create spec XML for "XForms 1.2: XPath 2.0 Support Module" based on XF 1.1 ch. 7 + wiki content + today's discussion
01:01:51 <trackbot> Created ACTION-576 - Create spec XML for "XForms 1.2: XPath 2.0 Support Module" based on XF 1.1 ch. 7 + wiki content + today's discussion [on Nick Van Den Bleeken - due 2009-11-10].
01:03:34 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make minutes
01:03:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-forms-minutes.html John_Boyer
01:04:24 <John_Boyer> John_Boyer has left #forms
01:29:22 <raman> looking forward to dinner ...
01:32:17 <raman> signing off ...
04:49:05 <ebruchez> ebruchez has joined #forms
05:02:27 <nick> nick has joined #forms
09:54:34 <markbirbeck> markbirbeck has joined #forms