See also: IRC log
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Feb/0004.html
Steven: I did the edits, fairly striaghtforward, and I left it vague about what it means for a JSON value to enter this system.
ACTION-2111?
<trackbot> ACTION-2111 -- Steven Pemberton to Refine the spectext about recognising if a incoming alue is json or not. -- due 2017-02-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> https://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/xforms/actions/2111
close ACTION-2111
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-2111.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Feb/0012.html
* At the start of a recalculate, there is a, possibly empty, list L of
instance nodes whose values may have been changed, e.g., by user input or
by a setvalue action.
* All nodes in L, if any, and nodes that are computationally dependent on
nodes in L must be recalculated.
* Only a single recalculation of each compute that is computationally
dependent on elements in L may be performed.
* A compute must be recalculated before any computes that are
computationally dependent on the instance node associated with it.
* If a compute is computationally dependent on an element in L and part of
a circular dependency, then an xforms-compute-error event must be
dispatched to the model element.
Steven: I suspect we can use the same sort of language with rebuild as well
Erik: Yeah
Steven: Then that would allow different implementations, just as you Erik have combined recalc with revalidate.
Erik: We have to say something about how the graph can depend on single values; we shouldn;t make life hard for implementors
Steven: I agree; but as long as
we specify it right, implementors can implement just as they
like. However, we should warn for the edgecases
... It's the section of the spec I'm working on, so I'll give
it a try.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2016Dec/0006.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2016Dec/0030.html
Steven: So one possiblity could be having a 'magic' data type, that holds the string value of a URI, but on submit it is recognised and dereferenced and the binary submitted.
Erik: That solves one of the
problems, but not all of them.
... I was wondering if there are other 'magic' things in the
spec.
<ebruchez> "Subsequent part requirements"
<ebruchez> 11.5.7.2 Serialization as multipart/related
Erik: This section doesn't say
where some of the values come from.
... it could be stored in the data, or out of band.
Steven: Do you have any recommendations?
Erik: So we need information
about the to-be-dereferenced URI, and then details about the
parts
... we could say it is implementation -dependent
Steven: That would make it hard to write interoperable forms
Erik: We could clarify that the
purpose is to handle things populated by upload
... a piece of text that says the type of the attachment is
stored at the URI is populated in the instance.
Steven: I need longer to think
about this.
... if you could send an email with details of how you might
implement it, that might help to crystallise the thoughts.
Erik: We do one of the muliti-parts, and we figure out how to identify the parts. I'll send an email.
Erik: You went to XML Prague.
Steven: Well attended. The
proceedings are online.
... XPath 3 is just about ready.
[ADJOURN]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148 of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/TH/Th/ Succeeded: s/dep/-dep/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Steven Inferring Scribes: Steven Present: Erik Steven WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list! Regrets: Alain Philip Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Feb/0019 Found Date: 15 Feb 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/02/15-forms-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]