See also: IRC log
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Apr/0015
Steven: This is from the last
meeting.
... Please check how deferred updates have been treated in the
new text.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Apr/0013
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Apr/0014
Steven: Since we agreed to add an <update/> action, should we add an update()
method as well?
Steven: Does <update/> need a matching event, or can it make do with the existing
rebuild, recalculate, and revalidate?
Steven: My feeling is that we need the first one.
Erik: The methods are not in general very useful; either we should deprecate, or make it consistent.
<scribe> ACTION: Steven to add update() method [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-forms-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2119 - Add update() method [on Steven Pemberton - due 2017-05-17].
Steven: recalculate etc. events cause the thing to happen, but not the other way round.
Erik: You don't really need the
event if the action already does the work.
... hmm, it's not even clear when the events are
dispatched,
<scribe> ACTION: Steven to research the relationship between the recalculate (etc) events and the actions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-forms-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2120 - Research the relationship between the recalculate (etc) events and the actions [on Steven Pemberton - due 2017-05-17].
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Apr/0012
Steven: I have made the change so that they send the event to the same element
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017May/0001
Steven: I will try and formulate new text to describe what actually happens.
<scribe> ACTION: Steven reformulate text for @incremental [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-forms-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2121 - Reformulate text for @incremental [on Steven Pemberton - due 2017-05-17].
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017May/0003
Steven: I think this would be a
beneficial backwards-incompatibility.
... existing forms would still work (because they program
around it), and new forms would be easier to write
Erik: It could be noticable if
the field is say an integer, but isn't explicitely
'required'.
... then the missing field used to be a type error.
... It could be many fields are required, without having the
required mip, just because of the type.
... We will add this behaviour; not sure exactly how, with
respect to backwards compatibility.
Steven: We could use the @version
attribute
... on model
Erik: We could say that the
xforms version 2.0 triggers the new behaviour.
... that would be one way
Steven: Let's think about it for
a week.
... when I read your email, I was kicking myself that we didn't
do it before.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017Mar/0012
[Awaiting an example]
Steven: Just a reminder
Erik: It's on the top of the list.
[None]
[ADJOURN]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/tryt/rey/ Succeeded: s/recalculate etc. events cause the thing to happen./recalculate etc. events cause the thing to happen, but not the other way round./ Succeeded: s/rey/try/ Present: Alain Erik Philip Steven No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Steven Inferring Scribes: Steven Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2017May/0008 Found Date: 10 May 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-forms-minutes.html People with action items: steven[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]