15:09:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #forms
15:09:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/02-forms-irc
15:09:40 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make log public
15:10:03 <John_Boyer> Chair: Philip
15:10:24 <John_Boyer> Scribe: John_Boyer
15:11:08 <John_Boyer> Meeting: Weekly XForms WG Teleconference
15:11:32 <John_Boyer> trackbot, start telecon
15:11:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:11:34 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #forms
15:11:36 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be IA_XForms
15:11:36 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see IA_XForms()11:00AM already started
15:11:37 <trackbot> Meeting: Forms Working Group Teleconference
15:11:38 <trackbot> Date: 02 May 2012
15:12:02 <John_Boyer> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2012May/0001.html
15:12:10 <John_Boyer> Regrets: Steven, Nick
15:13:31 <John_Boyer> Topic: Finish binding to text nodes
15:14:13 <John_Boyer> Erik: sent a note to public list for review after last telecon
15:14:51 <John_Boyer> Erik: implemented something for the edge cases but need to know if it is the right thing while rewriting some of that code
15:15:21 <ebruchez> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2012Apr/0059.html
15:16:33 <John_Boyer> Erik: Asks John to confirm summary
15:17:49 <John_Boyer> John: Agrees yes, spec wasn't really intended to limit binding to edge case node types (actual text nodes, PIs, comments) since it is possible to express in XPath
15:18:25 <John_Boyer> Erik: According to XML Schema literature, comments and PIs are ignored in validation
15:19:36 <John_Boyer> Erik: even though spec says data binding restrictions say "simple content", understanding is that it was not intent to restrict binding to the edge case nodes
15:21:38 <John_Boyer> John: although schema technically won't validate the edge case node types, nothing in spec prevents you from attaching those simple types to nodes using a type MIP
15:24:28 <John_Boyer> John: You proposed some wording for a note and asked if any thoughts.  I read and thought "wording looks good, can sweat words on telecon" and "could put this in the common form controls section rather than in every form control"
15:25:38 <John_Boyer> Erik: it might be a bit hard to implementers to find when reading details about a control
15:27:01 <John_Boyer> John: Could lengthen the description slightly in each data binding restriction itself
15:27:56 <John_Boyer> http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#ui-input
15:28:10 <John_Boyer> John: restriction says "Binds to any simpleContent"
15:28:30 <John_Boyer> John: what could be said differently
15:31:45 <John_Boyer> Erik: had difficulty determining what simpleContent meant. 
15:32:11 <John_Boyer> Philip: I always read that as being what is defined in XML Schema
15:32:39 <ebruchez> http://www.xqueryfunctions.com/xq/functx_has-simple-content.html
15:32:45 <John_Boyer> Erik: it is a lot to ask implementers to read the schema spec to figure this out; I didn't want to spend days doing it
15:33:17 <John_Boyer> Erik: this link (above) is not normative but I trust the author
15:34:02 <John_Boyer> Erik: a node needs to have character data in order to be simple content
15:34:14 <John_Boyer> Erik: does an input bind to simple content if the element is empty?
15:34:58 <John_Boyer> Philip: If you define whitespace as significant, does that change your technical point? Because whitespace is usually insignificant in DOM.
15:35:50 <John_Boyer> Erik: I don't know. It might be a tree construction to remove the whitespace text nodes, but in my implementation we get whitespace text nodes.
15:36:59 <John_Boyer> John: Based on XPath data model, whitespace is significant.  Also, pure xpath data model says no such thing as empty text node.
15:37:47 <John_Boyer> Erik: DOM does allow you to create empties
15:38:58 <John_Boyer> John: Agree and currently we do create empties so that there is no change of node existence on a setvalue, whether or not empty string happens, but I was considering ways to not create empty text nodes (even though I might not delete them once they exist)
15:39:20 <John_Boyer> Erik: xpath also says merge adjacent text nodes, whereas DOM doesn't
15:40:04 <John_Boyer> John: in XML schema validation, non-adjacent text nodes (e.g. separated by PIs) are merged for validatoin
15:41:39 <John_Boyer> Erik: so you get different results based on whether you bind to a PI/comment/text node versus a containing element
15:42:13 <John_Boyer> Erik: any thoughts on how to clarify the data binding restriction
15:42:55 <John_Boyer> John: it doesn't quite say what we mean, because we mean binding to a node that conforms to simpleContent restriction, but I didn't see it as a problem
15:43:33 <John_Boyer> Erik: implementers will be fairly familiar with the term node, so we could add something that includes that word.
15:44:48 <John_Boyer> Erik: is it even correct to say we bind to the content?
15:45:15 <John_Boyer> John: No, "we don't say quite what we mean" since we bind to the node whose content conforms...
15:45:53 <John_Boyer> Erik: So that's when I started reading about that function and that made it harder to decide what to implement
15:46:40 <John_Boyer> John: intention at the time was to reference XML schema 
15:47:43 <John_Boyer> John: at the time we were distinguishing binding to complex types that contained text versus those that contained nested elements.
15:49:06 <John_Boyer> Erik: Yeah and for years I've read it that way, but I'm now in the situation of having to decide what to do with edge case nodes where it is not clear that the definitions of XML schema  apply
15:50:10 <John_Boyer> John: we thought it was clear enough because we applied them to the node that is referenced in the binding
15:52:16 <John_Boyer> John: the low priority of the issue of binding to edge case nodes combined with the relative clarity of those nodes containing text content and not nested elements caused us to move on
15:52:46 <John_Boyer> John: I don't have a readily available way to efficiently clarify this in a phrase added to each data binding restriction
15:53:13 <John_Boyer> Erik: we could fairly quickly enumerate the cases in a note like the one I put in the email
15:56:02 <John_Boyer> John: Actually spec says that binding to comments and PIs has undefined behavior
15:56:38 <John_Boyer> http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#ui-processing
15:58:46 <John_Boyer> Erik: I was thinking that the Note would be added in this section anyway, except we could just add it to XForms 2.0 and it doesn't need to be an erratum
16:00:48 <John_Boyer> John:  It's wiki spec for first public working draft, and the note is a consistent expansion of what is there, so safe to add now.  Want to add it?
16:01:01 <John_Boyer> Philip: reach the top of the hour, done?
16:01:48 <John_Boyer> Action: Erik to add the note from the email to the ui-processing section in the XForms 2.0 wiki spec.
16:01:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1900 - Add the note from the email to the ui-processing section in the XForms 2.0 wiki spec. [on Erik Bruchez - due 2012-05-09].
16:02:15 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make minutes
16:02:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/02-forms-minutes.html John_Boyer
16:03:16 <John_Boyer> zakim, who is here?
16:03:23 <Zakim> -pfennell
16:03:34 <Zakim> -John_Boyer
16:03:36 <Zakim> -ebruchez
16:03:37 <Zakim> IA_XForms()11:00AM has ended
16:03:39 <Zakim> Attendees were pfennell, ebruchez, John_Boyer
16:03:48 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make minutes
16:03:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/02-forms-minutes.html John_Boyer
16:04:14 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, bye
16:04:14 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/02-forms-actions.rdf :
16:04:14 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Erik to add the note from the email to the ui-processing section in the XForms 2.0 wiki spec. [1]
16:04:14 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/02-forms-irc#T16-01-48