IRC log of forms on 2010-05-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:02:29 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #forms
15:02:29 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:02:33 [klotz]
zakim, room for 8 at 1500z for 60 mins?
15:02:36 [Zakim]
ok, klotz; conference Team_(forms)15:00Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) at 15:00z for 60 minutes until 1600Z; however, please note that capacity is now overbooked
15:02:37 [John_Boyer]
John_Boyer has joined #forms
15:02:38 [klotz]
zakim, this is forms
15:02:38 [Zakim]
klotz, I see Team_(forms)15:00Z in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be forms".
15:02:49 [klotz]
zakim, this will be forms
15:02:49 [Zakim]
ok, klotz; I see Team_(forms)15:00Z scheduled to start 2 minutes ago
15:02:56 [John_Boyer]
zakim, code?
15:02:56 [Zakim]
the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), John_Boyer
15:03:27 [Zakim]
Team_(forms)15:00Z has now started
15:03:34 [Zakim]
15:03:41 [Zakim]
15:04:08 [Zakim]
15:04:15 [klotz]
zakim, who is here
15:04:15 [Zakim]
klotz, you need to end that query with '?'
15:04:18 [klotz]
zakim, who is here?
15:04:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Nick_van_den_Bleeken, Leigh_Klotz, John_Boyer
15:04:19 [Zakim]
On IRC I see John_Boyer, RRSAgent, Zakim, wiecha, klotz, ebruchez, pfennell, nick, trackbot
15:04:47 [Zakim]
+ +0782483aaaa
15:05:15 [klotz]
zakim, +0782 is pfennell
15:05:15 [Zakim]
+pfennell; got it
15:05:21 [Zakim]
15:05:35 [klotz]
zakim, who is here?
15:05:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Nick_van_den_Bleeken, Leigh_Klotz, John_Boyer, pfennell, [IBM]
15:05:37 [Zakim]
On IRC I see John_Boyer, RRSAgent, Zakim, wiecha, klotz, ebruchez, pfennell, nick, trackbot
15:05:49 [klotz]
zakim, [ is wiecha
15:05:49 [Zakim]
+wiecha; got it
15:05:54 [klotz]
zakim, who is here?
15:05:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Nick_van_den_Bleeken, Leigh_Klotz, John_Boyer, pfennell, wiecha
15:05:56 [Zakim]
On IRC I see John_Boyer, RRSAgent, Zakim, wiecha, klotz, ebruchez, pfennell, nick, trackbot
15:06:02 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.515.aabb
15:06:04 [wiecha]
wiecha has joined #forms
15:06:11 [pfennell_]
pfennell_ has joined #forms
15:06:13 [ebruchez]
zakim, +1.650 is ebruchez
15:06:14 [Zakim]
+ebruchez; got it
15:06:22 [pfennell]
pfennell has left #forms
15:06:26 [klotz]
zakim, who is here?
15:06:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Nick_van_den_Bleeken, Leigh_Klotz, John_Boyer, pfennell, wiecha, ebruchez
15:06:32 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pfennell_, wiecha, John_Boyer, RRSAgent, Zakim, klotz, ebruchez, nick, trackbot
15:07:58 [klotz]
scribe: ebruchez
15:08:02 [klotz]
scribenick: ebruchez
15:08:14 [klotz]
15:08:34 [ebruchez]
topic: Rechartering
15:08:47 [ebruchez]
Leigh: No news, no rumors.
15:09:07 [ebruchez]
topic: Action Item Review
15:09:50 [ebruchez]
Nothing to report.
15:11:42 [klotz]
scribe: klotz
15:11:45 [klotz]
scribenick: klotz
15:11:49 [klotz]
topic: xslt function
15:11:58 [klotz]
nick: the doc function has the same problem in xslt
15:12:05 [klotz]
nick: and id
15:12:44 [klotz]
john: it's hard to get to that with id and now we've got to get to it because this is a bigger use case.
15:12:51 [klotz]
15:13:11 [klotz]
john: so it will not meet expectations easily unless we do a lot of work
15:13:30 [klotz]
nick: it's more unusual to change id attributes
15:13:45 [klotz]
leigh: the element with the id may move around
15:13:49 [klotz]
nick: or be inserted or deleted
15:13:55 [klotz]
john: delete and insert tend to rebuild
15:14:49 [klotz]
nick: maybe we can say that you have to rebuild for the xslt function, but i'm not big supporter
15:15:02 [klotz]
leigh: that's more like the xslt action and then saying it's like insert.
15:15:10 [klotz]
nick: not entirely.
15:15:21 [klotz]
john: it would effectively do an insert and a rebuild
15:15:58 [klotz]
erik: we're talking about 1.x action or function. a requirement for xslt may be too heavy. on the other hand if we make it optional, is it worth it?
15:18:50 [klotz]
leigh: i think we're discussing two things: xslt action vs function, and also pushing on the xquery/xpath2.0 framework issues for xforms 1.2. i'd like this to be an extension module so that implementations are compatible with each other in their extensions, and this proposal comes from an implementor.
15:19:21 [klotz]
erik: one big issue is nodes that aren't in an instance: doc(), node creation, and xslt function. is there anything else in this that's problematic?
15:22:47 [klotz]
leigh: that's one issue; the other is whether about whether we put in features that might trip up people in some way or other, such as input bound to xslt(), or to something where a trivial change might make a big change in speed.
15:22:56 [klotz]
nick: not all xslt transformations are expensive. some may be milliseconds
15:23:42 [klotz]
john: our design environment reads markup patterns; if you have an xslt function it's powerful and might be too much. it's harder to find them.
15:24:19 [klotz]
john: it's like assembly language. a transformation with specific use cases, prior to submission and an action, might be easier to find. it's easier to parse the xml than the xpath string.
15:24:49 [klotz]
erik: there is no doubt that xslt() is complex; it's a superset of xpath. otoh, if it's an optional module, you might not have to handle it at all.
15:24:52 [pfennell]
pfennell has joined #forms
15:25:17 [klotz]
john: philip said that in an email, keep it as an action as optional content, and the function version as well.
15:27:09 [klotz]
leigh: i'd like to have xslt action module for 1.2 and then leave the function open for more experimentation; when we get to the point of solving the doc() function issues we may be more motivated to solve it.
15:30:30 [klotz]
leigh: i'd like to solidify the xslt action for 1.2 as a module, and then leave open xslt() as a function because we'll need to solve the problems with doc().
15:30:42 [klotz]
s/doc()./doc() as well/
15:30:47 [klotz]
nick: we still have the same problems
15:31:00 [klotz]
erik: we can add this to the list of xpath 2.0 support issues, with the doc() function
15:32:52 [klotz]
leigh: we will have to get consensus on the function for doc() first.
15:34:42 [klotz]
nick: i'd like not to have a function and an action
15:35:12 [klotz]
leigh: I'd like to do incremental spec development in the wiki with the text for both, and let interested parties work on it. the xpath 2.0 set of issues will need to be solved before the function.
15:36:00 [klotz]
john: xpath 2.0 isn't tailored for xforms; same with technical disconnects in xml schema. it does 99% of what we want but there is 1% problem, like the doc() function.
15:36:42 [klotz]
leigh: we can certainly outlaw doc() via uri resolution rules, but that's a big step
15:37:15 [klotz]
erik: we only use xpath 2.0; we don't use (as far as I remember) the doc function. certainly not in bindings.
15:37:41 [klotz]
erik: we still have the issue of what happens with nodes that are not in instances. do we disallow doc() or disallow doc() in binding? In the end, it's just a decision to make.
15:37:56 [klotz]
erik: we have flexibility to say that, as leigh was saying. i hope the number of issues is small, less than a handful.
15:38:32 [klotz]
john: it's a technical fit, not an in-practice issue. it may be 99.999% in practice because they don't use the odd features.
15:38:38 [klotz]
john: we still have to explain the edge cases.
15:38:49 [klotz]
john: some fraction of 1,000,000 users will use it.
15:39:33 [klotz]
erik: it's unavoidable as things grow; the complexity isn't reduced, as in xpath 1.0 to 2.0.
15:40:02 [klotz]
erik: the justification is that you can do so much more. xpath 2.0 is a richer expression language.
15:40:31 [klotz]
john: i see the fear in the eyes of the QE engineers when one talks about increased flexibility.
15:40:57 [klotz]
erik: the flip side is that you have trouble with xpath 1.0 and multiple instances and are easier xpath 2.0
15:41:01 [klotz]
zakim, who is noisy?
15:41:12 [Zakim]
klotz, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Nick_van_den_Bleeken (4%), pfennell (31%)
15:41:18 [klotz]
zakim, mute pfennell
15:41:18 [Zakim]
pfennell should now be muted
15:41:35 [klotz]
nick: we switched to 2.0 as well because a lot of things are easier.
15:41:53 [klotz]
john: some differences would be good to list, for a test suite for conformance.
15:42:25 [klotz]
john: those then become the sales pitch for xpath 2.0, if youi list the solutions
15:42:34 [klotz]
john: then you get test suite tests
15:43:02 [klotz]
john: by communicating what problems people solve, and interop testing, with the primary use cases.
15:43:16 [klotz]
john: the qa fear is that obscure, messy secondary use cases are now primary.
15:43:55 [klotz]
nick: do you see use cases for doc() right now; erik has reported not seeing it in the wild.
15:44:14 [klotz]
nick: you can use submission.
15:45:55 [klotz]
leigh: the only case I've seen with xquery and doc() is where query does fetches and iteration
15:46:05 [klotz]
leigh: xforms doesn't have the loop construct that
15:46:35 [klotz]
john: it does have it; use @while and send and insert
15:47:12 [klotz]
nick: it's a lot of work to set up
15:47:15 [ebruchez]
we were supposed to have an @iterate attribute on actions too, which somehow didn't get into XForms 1.1
15:47:38 [klotz]
leigh: iteration is the draw that makes you want to use doc() in xpath2 or xquery
15:47:44 [klotz]
nick: also replace.
15:48:05 [klotz]
erik: that's a good point; xpath 2.0 has a function library that's great in comparison to xpath 1.0.
15:48:20 [kennethsklander]
kennethsklander has joined #forms
15:48:21 [klotz]
nick: i also use sequences; you can iterate, reverse, intersect.
15:49:54 [klotz]
leigh: are the problematic, little-used features of xpath 2.0 that we should take a hard look it?
15:50:05 [klotz]
leigh: is it just the doc function?
15:50:16 [klotz]
erik: i can't think of anything major right now?
15:50:34 [pfennell]
Hello, can anyone here me?
15:50:47 [klotz]
zakim, unmute pfennell
15:50:47 [Zakim]
pfennell should no longer be muted
15:51:06 [klotz]
nick: we should open up for sequences; it's some work
15:51:45 [klotz]
erik: an xpath 2.0 expr can return a sequence containing a string, attribute, text node, etc. more often is an expression returning a sequence of string. so can xforms repeat over a sequence? we support it.
15:52:37 [klotz]
leigh: that's useful. i'm looking for things that aren't useful: i want to find the low-hanging rotten fruit
15:52:58 [klotz]
pfennell: unparsed-entity() gives you text
15:53:41 [klotz]
pfennell: or is that in xslt?
15:53:47 [klotz]
leigh: maybe that's xslt
15:53:57 [klotz]
erik: there's a similar function collection() like doc()
15:54:18 [klotz]
nick: there are some native implementation functions that aren't in the instance but are providing data
15:54:30 [klotz]
nick: so we could say it's like an anonymous instance containing those nodes.
15:54:57 [klotz]
john: that would be good but then we'd have to have the schedule for updates. the issue the functions raise is what happens when the resources change? we have a dirty corner with id() and now().
15:55:04 [klotz]
john: in xpath 1.0.
15:55:30 [klotz]
john: we've decided that it's up to implementations to decide when to do that.
15:56:35 [klotz]
leigh: xslt caches during the transformation; http includes many cache directives. forever isn't a good answer for a form because it might be the only form; consider a kiosk
15:56:48 [klotz]
nick: we could say rebuild is when the cache can be revisited
15:57:22 [klotz]
john: xslt() function operates over live instance data. the doc() function references something that we don't know about volatility
15:57:42 [klotz]
nick: we need to do the work, maybe not now. just dependency engine tweaks.
15:59:26 [wiecha]
15:59:35 [John_Boyer]
15:59:53 [klotz]
leigh: xpath 2.0 is useful. the xslt() function might be useful. let's consider them together.
15:59:55 [John_Boyer]
above +1's are about what Leigh just said
16:00:12 [klotz]
leigh: now, do we do xslt action now or is it unnecesary work? the +1 are about this
16:00:43 [klotz]
nick: I'm neutral
16:01:06 [klotz]
philip: I agree to write up the xslt action. i agree that the issue of functions is tied t xpath to do separtely.
16:01:27 [klotz]
s/agree to write up/agree we should write up/
16:02:12 [klotz]
leigh: who wants to write it up?
16:02:30 [klotz]
action: leigh klotz to write up xslt action in xforms 1.2 wiki
16:02:33 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-618 - Klotz to write up xslt action in xforms 1.2 wiki [on Leigh Klotz, Jr. - due 2010-05-19].
16:03:29 [klotz]
leigh: nick, can you a place in the wiki to put the xslt() function?
16:03:36 [klotz]
nick: there's already a wiki page i created.
16:04:58 [Zakim]
16:04:59 [Zakim]
16:05:00 [Zakim]
16:05:01 [Zakim]
16:05:01 [Zakim]
16:05:01 [Zakim]
16:05:03 [Zakim]
Team_(forms)15:00Z has ended
16:05:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were Nick_van_den_Bleeken, Leigh_Klotz, John_Boyer, +0782483aaaa, pfennell, [IBM], wiecha, +1.650.515.aabb, ebruchez
16:05:05 [klotz]
leigh: ok, i'll linjk it in.
16:05:11 [klotz]
zakim, make minutes
16:05:11 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'make minutes', klotz
16:05:16 [klotz]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:05:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate klotz
16:05:23 [John_Boyer]
John_Boyer has left #forms
16:41:48 [ebruchez]
ebruchez has joined #forms
18:25:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #forms
18:41:25 [nick]
nick has joined #forms