IRC log of forms on 2017-05-10
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 12:57:42 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #forms
- 12:57:42 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-forms-irc
- 12:57:44 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 12:57:44 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #forms
- 12:57:46 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be
- 12:57:46 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
- 12:57:47 [trackbot]
- Meeting: XForms Users Community Group Teleconference
- 12:57:47 [trackbot]
- Date: 10 May 2017
- 12:57:56 [Steven]
- Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017May/0008
- 12:58:06 [Steven]
- Steven has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017May/0008
- 12:58:39 [Steven]
- Chair: Steven
- 13:00:00 [pfennell]
- pfennell has joined #forms
- 13:00:58 [Steven]
- Present: Alain, Erik, Philip, Steven
- 13:01:27 [Steven]
- Topic: ACTION-2118: Simplify deferred update text.
- 13:01:27 [Steven]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Apr/0015
- 13:01:39 [Steven]
- Steven: This is from the last meeting.
- 13:02:08 [Steven]
- Steven: Please check how deferred updates have been treated in the new text.
- 13:02:21 [Steven]
- Topic: <update/> (two questions)
- 13:02:21 [Steven]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Apr/0013
- 13:02:21 [Steven]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Apr/0014
- 13:02:37 [Steven]
- Steven: Since we agreed to add an <update/> action, should we add an update()
- 13:02:37 [Steven]
- method as well?
- 13:02:56 [Steven]
- Steven: Does <update/> need a matching event, or can it make do with the existing
- 13:02:56 [Steven]
- rebuild, recalculate, and revalidate?
- 13:03:41 [Steven]
- Steven: My feeling is that we need the first one.
- 13:04:04 [Steven]
- Erik: The methods are not in general very useful; either we should deprecate, or make it consistent.
- 13:04:24 [Steven]
- ACTION: Steven to add update() method
- 13:04:25 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-2119 - Add update() method [on Steven Pemberton - due 2017-05-17].
- 13:06:30 [Steven]
- Steven: recalculate etc. events cause the thing to happen.
- 13:06:56 [Steven]
- Erik: You don't really need the event if the action already does the work.
- 13:08:08 [Steven]
- ... hmm, it's not even clear when the events are dispatched,
- 13:08:40 [Steven]
- ACTION: Steven to research the relationship between the recalculate (etc) events and the actions
- 13:08:40 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-2120 - Research the relationship between the recalculate (etc) events and the actions [on Steven Pemberton - due 2017-05-17].
- 13:08:58 [Steven]
- Topic: The copy Element
- 13:08:58 [Steven]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Apr/0012
- 13:09:30 [Steven]
- Steven: I have made the change so that they send the event to the same element
- 13:09:51 [Steven]
- Topic: @incremental
- 13:09:51 [Steven]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017May/0001
- 13:10:57 [Steven]
- Steven: I will tryt and formulate new text to describe what actually happens.
- 13:11:03 [Steven]
- s/tryt/rey/
- 13:11:16 [Steven]
- ACTION: Steven reformulate text for @incremental
- 13:11:16 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-2121 - Reformulate text for @incremental [on Steven Pemberton - due 2017-05-17].
- 13:11:32 [Steven]
- Topic: Validation and optional fields
- 13:11:32 [Steven]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017May/0003
- 13:12:29 [Steven]
- Steven: I think this would be a beneficial backwards-incompatibility.
- 13:12:52 [Steven]
- ... existing forms would still work (because they program around it), and new forms would be easier to write
- 13:13:45 [Steven]
- Erik: It could be noticable if the field is say an integer, but isn't explicitely 'required'.
- 13:14:36 [Steven]
- ... then the missing field used to be a type error.
- 13:15:22 [Steven]
- ... It could be many fields are required, without having the required mip, just because of the type.
- 13:16:07 [Steven]
- ... We will add this behaviour; not sure exactly how, with respect to backwards compatibility.
- 13:16:30 [Steven]
- Steven: We could use the @version attribute
- 13:18:04 [Steven]
- ... on model
- 13:19:27 [Steven]
- Erik: We could say that the xforms version 2.0 triggers the new behaviour.
- 13:20:08 [Steven]
- ... that would be one way
- 13:20:15 [Steven]
- Steven: Let's think about it for a week.
- 13:20:43 [Steven]
- ... when I read your email, I was kicking myself that we didn't do it before.
- 13:21:31 [Steven]
- Topic: Dynamic dependencies
- 13:21:31 [Steven]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Mar/0012
- 13:21:31 [Steven]
- [Awaiting an example]
- 13:21:37 [Steven]
- Steven: Just a reminder
- 13:21:44 [Steven]
- Erik: It's on the top of the list.
- 13:21:46 [Steven]
- Topic: AOB
- 13:21:53 [Steven]
- [None]
- 13:22:17 [Steven]
- [ADJOURN]
- 13:22:22 [Steven]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 13:22:22 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-forms-minutes.html Steven
- 13:23:36 [Steven]
- s/recalculate etc. events cause the thing to happen./recalculate etc. events cause the thing to happen, but not the other way round./
- 13:23:38 [Steven]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 13:23:38 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-forms-minutes.html Steven
- 13:24:18 [Steven]
- s/rey/try/
- 13:24:22 [Steven]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 13:24:22 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-forms-minutes.html Steven
- 15:01:39 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #forms
- 16:02:13 [ebruchez]
- ebruchez has joined #forms