IRC log of tagmem on 2002-03-11
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:16:17 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
- 15:16:23 [timdesk]
- RRSAgent, pointer?
- 15:16:23 [timdesk]
- See http://www.w3.org/2002/03/11-tagmem-irc#T15-16-23
- 15:17:13 [timdesk]
- Hmmm... I can't read that, RRSAGent.
- 15:17:29 [DanC]
- tim bray's message about an intro document didn't get to my inbox. Makes me v. nervous.
- 15:18:12 [timdesk]
- Where was it addressed to?
- 15:19:26 [DanC]
- tag@w3.org
- 15:19:27 [timdesk]
- timdesk has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2002/03/11-tag.html
- 15:20:01 [timdesk]
- timdesk has changed the topic to: PUBLIC LOG. Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2002/03/11-tag.html
- 15:21:54 [timdesk]
- The last messaeg I have in my inbox to the tag@ list is 3/5
- 15:22:34 [timdesk]
- Sorrt 3/8 from Chris re(2) agnga ...
- 15:26:23 [TimBray]
- TimBray has joined #tagmem
- 15:26:39 [TimBray]
- hey all, what's the phone#/code again?
- 15:27:00 [DanC]
- Zakim, what's the passcode?
- 15:27:01 [Zakim]
- sorry, DanC, I don't know what conference this is
- 15:27:06 [DanC]
- Zakim, this will be tag
- 15:27:07 [Zakim]
- ok, DanC
- 15:27:10 [DanC]
- Zakim, what's the passcode?
- 15:27:11 [Zakim]
- sorry, DanC, I don't know what conference this is
- 15:27:16 [TimBray]
- :)
- 15:27:18 [DanC]
- phpht
- 15:27:28 [DanC]
- the agenda should say...
- 15:27:33 [TimBray]
- oh right
- 15:27:35 [Zakim]
- TAG_Weekly()10:30AM has now started
- 15:27:37 [Zakim]
- +TimBL
- 15:27:54 [DanC]
- timdesk, http://www.w3.org/2002/03/11-tag.html is not an agenda; W3C process says the phone number goes in the agenda.
- 15:28:34 [Norm]
- Norm has joined #tagmem
- 15:28:57 [timdesk]
- oops
- 15:29:08 [DanC]
- er... oops; I thought it did. but I can't confirm in http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups.html#GeneralMeetings
- 15:29:09 [timdesk]
- Its not schema valid.
- 15:29:11 [Zakim]
- +N.Walsh
- 15:29:12 [Zakim]
- -N.Walsh
- 15:29:58 [Zakim]
- +??P7
- 15:30:06 [DanC]
- Zakim, what's the passcode?
- 15:30:07 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 0824, DanC
- 15:30:44 [Stuart]
- Stuart has joined #tagmem
- 15:31:02 [Roy]
- Roy has joined #tagmem
- 15:31:30 [Zakim]
- +DanC
- 15:31:30 [Zakim]
- -DanC
- 15:31:31 [Zakim]
- +DanC
- 15:31:51 [timdesk]
- Zakim, what is the passcode?
- 15:31:52 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 0824, timdesk
- 15:32:03 [TimBL]
- Zakim, whois here?
- 15:32:03 [Zakim]
- I don't understand your question, TimBL.
- 15:32:07 [TimBL]
- Zakim, who is here?
- 15:32:08 [Zakim]
- I see TimBL, ??P7, DanC
- 15:32:22 [TimBL]
- Zakim, ??P7 is Roy
- 15:32:23 [Zakim]
- +Roy; got it
- 15:32:44 [Zakim]
- +??P8
- 15:32:48 [Zakim]
- +TBray
- 15:33:09 [Zakim]
- +??P10
- 15:33:25 [TimBL]
- Zakim, ??P8 is PaulC
- 15:33:26 [Zakim]
- +PaulC; got it
- 15:33:33 [Stuart]
- Zakim, +??P10 is me
- 15:33:35 [Zakim]
- sorry, Stuart, I do not recognize a party named '+??P10'
- 15:33:44 [Stuart]
- Zakim, ??P10 is me
- 15:33:45 [Zakim]
- +Stuart; got it
- 15:35:01 [DanC]
- I have a code in by dose.
- 15:35:10 [Ian]
- Ian has joined #tagmem
- 15:35:22 [DanC]
- dialing in, Ian?
- 15:36:06 [Zakim]
- +Ian
- 15:36:31 [TimBL]
- Zakim, who is here?
- 15:36:32 [Zakim]
- I see TimBL, Roy, DanC, PaulC, TBray, Stuart, Ian
- 15:36:57 [Zakim]
- +ChrisL
- 15:37:41 [TimBL]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Mar/0021.html
- 15:37:52 [DanC]
- [member confidential. :-{]
- 15:37:54 [TimBL]
- Is a message from Tim Bray
- 15:38:46 [Ian]
- NW: One-page summary , section 2. We have different approaches (more/less technical).
- 15:38:47 [DanC]
- I did read TimBray's pg http://www.textuality.com/tag/Intro.html . Good for software folks; doesn't say anything for webmasters. doesn't say anything about a "space".
- 15:38:51 [Ian]
- ...which way should it go?
- 15:38:51 [DanC]
- s/anything/much/
- 15:38:56 [Ian]
- TB: Should be correct but readable.
- 15:39:30 [Ian]
- NW: SW and I would ilke to unify. There's a spectrum. We entered at two different points.
- 15:39:43 [DanC]
- I like friendly/chatty.
- 15:39:51 [Ian]
- PC: One-page summary , section 3. Sitting on my desk now.
- 15:40:08 [Ian]
- TBL: Don't hestitate to cc tag@w3.org if you are sending messages back and forth.
- 15:40:17 [Ian]
- One-page summary , section 4
- 15:40:26 [Ian]
- RF: I'm going to send our current state during this call.
- 15:40:37 [Ian]
- ...I received last night and read through; haven't made comments yet.
- 15:40:50 [Chris]
- Chris has joined #tagmem
- 15:41:10 [Ian]
- One-page summary , section 5
- 15:41:31 [Ian]
- CL: I sent in some notes, but not yet discussed with PC.
- 15:42:24 [DanC]
- if you're setting deadlines, tim, COB Fri doesn't help me at all. COB Thu is the latest that's useful.
- 15:42:25 [Ian]
- TBL: Goal - end of business Friday. Whatever you've got, please sent to tag@w3.org, or www-tag if you wish (I'm happy for www-tag).
- 15:43:16 [Ian]
- DC: Close of biz Friday not good for me.
- 15:43:36 [Ian]
- RF: I'm having trouble getting stuff done on weekend in preparation of this meeting.
- 15:44:08 [Ian]
- TBL: Please finish drafts by c.o.b. on Weds, then.
- 15:44:22 [Ian]
- Action DC: check with workshop chair, make the XML PM ws minutes available to the public, per CFP
- 15:44:24 [Ian]
- DC: No progress.
- 15:45:04 [Zakim]
- +DOrchard
- 15:45:11 [Ian]
- Action IJ: Take over DC's action to send summary to AC.
- 15:45:14 [TimBL]
- .Action Ian - take that from Dan - send paul's summary
- 15:45:18 [Ian]
- See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Mar/0002.html
- 15:45:57 [Ian]
- Action IJ: Integrate findings into TAG arch doc toc.
- 15:46:00 [Ian]
- TBL: I thought I had done that.
- 15:46:10 [Ian]
- TB: Should be integrating issues as well as findings.
- 15:46:13 [Ian]
- IJ: No progress.
- 15:46:13 [DanC]
- TimBL, you're doing well to review the actions in the maximally confusing order. ;-)
- 15:47:06 [Ian]
- Action RF: Summarize different approaches currently used for mapping URIs to media types.
- 15:47:08 [Ian]
- RF: No progress.
- 15:47:18 [Ian]
- --------------------------------
- 15:47:38 [Ian]
- mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 : What is the meaning of a document composed of content in mixed namespaces?
- 15:47:42 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedNamespaceMeaning-13
- 15:47:52 [Ian]
- "The Interpretation of XML documents
- 15:47:52 [Ian]
- "
- 15:47:55 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/XML.html
- 15:47:56 [DanC]
- the agenda includes "3/18" referring to a date; pls don't do that. write 18 Mar or 2002-03-18 .
- 15:48:47 [Ian]
- TBL summarizing: There is a set of things like embedded xslt, xinclude, xquery, etc. These things elaborate in a particular way how they are to be replaced.
- 15:49:01 [Ian]
- ...the meaning of the xml document should be that after elaboration.
- 15:49:22 [Ian]
- ...processors should expect to see this type of content anywhere in an xml document and be prepared to deal with it.
- 15:49:49 [Ian]
- ...there are certain architectural principles such as piece X can replace itself but can't touch other parts of the XML tree.
- 15:50:54 [Ian]
- PC: Please elucidate the encryption problem early in XML.html.
- 15:51:03 [Ian]
- TB: DO has a rant on this as well.
- 15:51:28 [Ian]
- TBL: We know how to say what an xhtml document is (spec + schema).
- 15:51:41 [Chris]
- This model does not seem to describe XSL-T processing very well
- 15:52:25 [Ian]
- TBL: For XML Encryption, people have been running an entire document through a processor. But when several of these functional pieces are together, there is a big-ending type problem.
- 15:52:33 [Ian]
- TBL: When you treat as functions, there are no problems.
- 15:52:39 [Ian]
- CL: Not "no problems" but "different problems".
- 15:52:48 [DanC]
- I wonder if the "functions" view is consistent with the "stack of SAX filters" implementation technique.
- 15:53:38 [Ian]
- TBL: Suppose part of a document is encrypted. E.g., xhtml document with a meaty bit in xml encryption.
- 15:54:19 [TimBray]
- I assume there are use cases...this notion of partial encryption seems like very poor security practice, but what do I know?
- 15:54:21 [Ian]
- ...This is not a valid xhtml document. So what is it? The proposed answer is: if you support xml encryption, then you expect it anywhere, and should be able to decrypt in the right setting (e.g., right keys). The "meaning" is after that encryption.
- 15:54:31 [Ian]
- s/encryption/decryption/
- 15:54:38 [DanC]
- q+
- 15:54:47 [Chris]
- I wonder how this functional approach affecxts things like validation.
- 15:54:51 [Ian]
- TBL: If you have an encrypted thing that contains an xinclude, you must decrypt first before getting xinclude.
- 15:55:02 [Dave]
- Dave has joined #tagmem
- 15:55:02 [Ian]
- PC: When does schema validation get done.
- 15:55:17 [Dave]
- +q
- 15:55:19 [TimBray]
- q+
- 15:55:21 [Norm]
- The functional way doesn't work for me either, just because XInclude is inside xsl:template doesn't mean I want the template fired before the xinclude
- 15:55:21 [Chris]
- q+
- 15:55:23 [Ian]
- TBL: Schema validation doesn't make sense until after the functional expansion has been done.
- 15:55:23 [TimBray]
- +q
- 15:55:24 [Dave]
- q+
- 15:56:09 [Ian]
- DC: How is this Web architecture? [DC groks expanding xml encryption and finding xml includes in their place.]
- 15:56:17 [Ian]
- TBL: Architecture based on sending information to each other.
- 15:56:50 [Ian]
- PC to DC: We started talking about MIME types. TimBL started in by saying that the namespace of the root element was very important. Some of us argued against that (citing xslt example).
- 15:57:00 [Ian]
- ....when you look at it you can't tell what type of document it is.
- 15:57:05 [DanC]
- "root element NS is important" ... important for what?
- 15:57:28 [Ian]
- PC: So, this is "Web architecture" following logic that got us to this question.
- 15:57:49 [TimBL]
- q+ PC
- 15:57:54 [Ian]
- TBL: The problem is when recipient goes through different process than author expected.
- 15:58:03 [Ian]
- DC: I still don't get why this is important.
- 15:58:08 [Chris]
- ack DanC
- 15:58:12 [TimBL]
- ack DanC
- 15:58:13 [Ian]
- TBL: Do you think that defining what an xml document means is important?
- 15:58:17 [Ian]
- DC: Not in the general case.
- 15:58:30 [Ian]
- TB: DC may be right. Does this problem go away after processing model work starts?
- 15:58:52 [DanC]
- q+
- 15:58:55 [Ian]
- TB: On when to do schema validation: I could right a schema for partially encrypted documents.
- 15:58:57 [Norm]
- What TimBray said. We went around in circles over this at the procmodel workshop: there is no right answer.
- 15:58:59 [DanC]
- note to self: about XInclude and Schema
- 15:59:06 [Ian]
- TBL to TB: You could, yes, but there are unanswered questions.
- 15:59:18 [Ian]
- TB: This problem goes away, IMO, once we have a processing model.
- 15:59:30 [Ian]
- TBL: This is my contribution to the processing model debate: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/XML.html
- 15:59:32 [DanC]
- Norm, TimBray, there's no
- 15:59:39 [DanC]
- "processing mode" working group chartered presently.
- 15:59:40 [TimBL]
- ack TimBray
- 15:59:52 [Ian]
- TB: See pipeline proposal:
- 16:00:12 [TimBL]
- ack Chris
- 16:00:16 [Ian]
- TBL: Pipeline is half of processing model.
- 16:00:17 [DanC]
- XML Pipeline Definition Language Version 1.0
- 16:00:17 [DanC]
- 28 February 2002, Norman Walsh, Eve Maler (XML Pipeline Definition Language Submission)
- 16:00:20 [Norm]
- q+
- 16:00:25 [DanC]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-pipeline/
- 16:00:33 [Ian]
- TB: TBL, you're hosed if you just get an xml document and don't know all the namespaces.
- 16:00:52 [Ian]
- CL: My problem with TBL's writing doesn't describe schema processing or xslt processing.
- 16:01:38 [Ian]
- TBL: My document doesn't tell you the order of processing.
- 16:01:46 [Ian]
- CL: It does give one order, that's not universally applicable.
- 16:02:03 [DanC]
- TimBL, when PC asked about order, you said "yes, you have to decrypt before xinclude". I'm confused.
- 16:02:37 [Ian]
- TBL: You can choose to elaborate functions or not. Depending on who you are. But the meaning of the document is what you would get if you expanded them all.
- 16:02:49 [TimBL]
- ack Dave
- 16:02:55 [Ian]
- TBL continuing: But it doesn't matter to me who does what, for example.
- 16:03:18 [Ian]
- DO: On the XML encryption issue: One of the tenets (or invariants) of the Web (IMO) is that documents are self-describing.
- 16:04:01 [Ian]
- DO: You can encrypt portion of a message (e.g., SOAP) and XML Encryption doesn't say what to do in this case. I suggested to them that, anyone who encrypts should make some sort of change to keep a document self-describing.
- 16:04:13 [Ian]
- TBL: If you encrypt an entire document, there will be a mime type for this.
- 16:04:27 [Ian]
- ...if you are talking about the case of subtrees....
- 16:04:52 [Ian]
- TBL: What do you mean by self-describing? Do you mean that by looking at mime headers you should know what to do?
- 16:04:53 [TimBray]
- in DO's argument s/encryption/xinclude/ or s/encryption/xquery/ - point still holds
- 16:05:17 [Ian]
- DO: If you "just look at a[n encrypted] document" and think it's xml, the content type lies about what's really there.
- 16:05:37 [Ian]
- ...the first thing that has to happen is that there needs to be a clue that somethign has been encrypted.
- 16:05:53 [Chris]
- I note that this model means that you can never schema validate anything but the fully-expanded result
- 16:05:57 [DanC]
- q?
- 16:06:14 [Chris]
- which means that any xml language for a function becomes non-validatable
- 16:06:20 [Ian]
- TBL: When you say the first thing that needs to be done is decryption, that may not be the case.
- 16:06:21 [Chris]
- q+
- 16:06:26 [DanC]
- q-
- 16:06:40 [Ian]
- TBL: Suppose that a browser does incremental rendering until the viewport has been filled.
- 16:06:58 [Ian]
- ...the browser could choose to not retrieve images or decrypt content unless absolutely necessary (lazy processing).
- 16:07:15 [Ian]
- PC: I now understand DO's rant.
- 16:07:43 [Ian]
- PC: DO is concerned about case when mime type says "foo/bar" but you have to decrypt part of a document to get "foo/bar" content.
- 16:08:03 [Chris]
- The MIME type becomes an assertion of what will result after an arbitrary amount of processing
- 16:08:11 [Dave]
- q+
- 16:08:23 [TimBL]
- q+
- 16:08:36 [Ian]
- PC: I thought that the XML Processing workshop came to a conclusion - that there is no generic processing model. There are always counter examples.
- 16:09:17 [Ian]
- PC: XSLT 2 will allow stuff after PSV
- 16:09:30 [Ian]
- PC: I don't think the workshop was a failure; it showed lots of counter-examples.
- 16:10:17 [Ian]
- PC: People at workshop felt that XML Core WG would be a good forum for this work.
- 16:10:51 [Chris]
- q-
- 16:11:19 [DanC]
- ack PC
- 16:11:22 [DanC]
- ack Norm
- 16:11:23 [Ian]
- NW: When I first read TBL's paper, I thought it specified a processing order. I don't think it's possible to do in an arbitrary order.
- 16:11:35 [Ian]
- NW: I think that unless you have a private agreement, there's no right answer in the general case.
- 16:11:40 [Ian]
- +q
- 16:11:44 [Ian]
- q+
- 16:11:57 [DanC]
- ack Dave
- 16:12:02 [Chris]
- it specifies an order by the order of the immediate children of the root
- 16:12:04 [Ian]
- DO: I suggested in a paper at the workshop that this work be done in XML Core WG.
- 16:12:25 [Chris]
- I agree with Tim that this means the porder can be altered,as long as you can rewrite the instance
- 16:12:31 [Ian]
- DO: I think there should be an explicit processing model for how to process XML documents, and a language that describes it.
- 16:13:01 [Ian]
- DO: For some applications, there may be an explicit processing model. A minimalist suggestion is that we can say "For document-oriented XML Dcouments, use the following order...."
- 16:13:22 [Ian]
- ...perhaps in machine-oriented realm, this may not be the right way to do things.
- 16:13:48 [TimBray]
- q+
- 16:14:38 [DanC]
- per the agenda, we're on issue mixedNamespaceMeaning-13. lemme swap that in... http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedNamespaceMeaning-13
- 16:14:54 [Dave]
- lol
- 16:15:14 [Ian]
- NW: TBL, you seem to be asserting that if you elaborate b before a or in the other order, the results will be the same.
- 16:15:28 [Ian]
- TBL: Yes, I am within the constraint that the elaboration has no impact on the rest of the document.
- 16:16:26 [Ian]
- NW: Suppose I build a TOC before or after processing XIncludes. I might get 3 or 4 chapters depending on when I expect XIncludes.
- 16:16:52 [TimBray]
- you'll be happy to hear that I plan to try for some concluding noises
- 16:17:01 [Ian]
- q-
- 16:17:20 [TimBL]
- There is a draft by Simon StLaurent aboyt putting the sum of the nsamepsaces in the mime type - this addresses DavidO's concern. This is a concern.
- 16:17:33 [Norm]
- When people put X in their document, they *do* know what they mean. But if you had me your document, *I* don't know what you meant. You have to tell me.
- 16:17:40 [Chris]
- Not clear that a list of namespaces helps too much
- 16:17:43 [Ian]
- TB: I think that if you look at what came out of processing model workshop, and our discussion here, it's hard to make statements about processing that are wide in their applicability.
- 16:18:08 [Ian]
- TB: I think it's a good idea to define a processing model. However, at the moment we don't have a formal way to write this down.
- 16:18:10 [Chris]
- q+
- 16:18:21 [DanC]
- ack timbl
- 16:18:23 [DanC]
- ack timbray
- 16:18:36 [DanC]
- after chris
- 16:18:41 [Ian]
- TB: Given that we only have human-readable prose. We might want to start a processing model group that provides language designers a way to write down their processing model.
- 16:19:34 [Ian]
- TB: You can ignore my processing order, but I have the "right" to express it.
- 16:19:42 [DanC]
- q+
- 16:19:51 [Chris]
- TimBL has just mnade my point
- 16:19:59 [Chris]
- well, part of it
- 16:20:00 [DanC]
- take you off the queue, then?
- 16:20:05 [Chris]
- no
- 16:20:08 [DanC]
- ok
- 16:20:09 [Ian]
- TBL: In XML you sometimes get this "battle" between precedence at the attribute level.
- 16:20:30 [DanC]
- not to self: who made a promise that all XML namespaces can be arbitrarily mixed?
- 16:20:58 [Dave]
- q+
- 16:21:08 [DanC]
- note to self: on CR exit criteria for schema/XINclude/etc.
- 16:21:18 [Ian]
- TBL: We're shipping xslt and xinclude. People think they know how to interpret these things. We will either get a de facto clash (e.g., you can't use both at the same time) or there is a simple processing model and the xml processing model is on too high a plane.
- 16:21:42 [Ian]
- CL: Subgroups are agreeing among themselves on processing models, for a limited set of processing.
- 16:21:48 [Ian]
- ...localized architecture.
- 16:21:49 [TimBray]
- TBray said: a processing model facility is good even if people can write conflicting demands with it
- 16:21:54 [Norm]
- q?
- 16:21:59 [DanC]
- ack Chris
- 16:22:12 [Ian]
- CL: It's not clear that we can generalize to all combinations. We should still write down the localized parts.
- 16:22:52 [Ian]
- TB to CL: Are you asserting that we should look with favor on two groups getting together and saying "Always do A before B?"
- 16:23:09 [Ian]
- CL: No, we should recognize that they are already doing this and either help them or tell them not to.
- 16:23:38 [Ian]
- DC: I asked at CR discussion which went first xinclude or schema; people not interested in the answer at the time.
- 16:23:43 [Norm]
- q+
- 16:23:48 [Norm]
- ack danc
- 16:23:51 [Ian]
- DC: ...the cat is out of the bag as far as I'm concerned.
- 16:24:11 [Ian]
- DC: If we say now that you can mix our specs in any order and get a consistent result, that's like returning 2 years in the past. May not be easy.
- 16:24:16 [Ian]
- q?
- 16:24:36 [Ian]
- DO: The processing model comes up when you want to mix content.
- 16:24:49 [Ian]
- ....software is written to understand particular namespaces.
- 16:25:17 [Ian]
- DO: ...the scale of things we could do is to define an explicit processing model that could be contained within each particular document; to give the author a way to say what they think the proper order is.
- 16:25:23 [Ian]
- DO: Another extreme is to do nothing.
- 16:25:37 [Chris]
- I remember I wanted to praise the value of namespaces that do not alter the infoset
- 16:25:39 [Ian]
- DO: Slightly less than that is to write down instructions for commonly used processing.
- 16:26:21 [DanC]
- q?
- 16:26:26 [DanC]
- ack Dave
- 16:26:53 [Chris]
- The longer we leave it, the more existing practice we have to break to enforce a single global architecture
- 16:26:54 [Ian]
- NW: TBL said there were two possibilities: clash or simple model. There's a third possibility - different communities will get used to different processing models.
- 16:27:31 [Ian]
- NW: ..and we will have to have ways to describe which model we are using in which case.
- 16:27:57 [Chris]
- q+
- 16:28:08 [Ian]
- TBL: Can we make a default processing?
- 16:28:23 [TimBray]
- q+
- 16:28:31 [Ian]
- NW: Maybe xhtml browsers need to have a fixed processing order. Not the same as saying that all applications need the same processing order.
- 16:28:40 [Ian]
- TB: Maybe there's an 80/20 point we can hit.
- 16:29:08 [Ian]
- TB: Getting 80% right would be a huge boost to interoperability.
- 16:29:15 [Norm]
- q?
- 16:29:25 [Ian]
- IJ: Is TB's document good enough as a default order?
- 16:29:36 [Chris]
- q+ Paul
- 16:29:51 [Ian]
- PC: I'd like to probe TBL's arch principle - functions that have no side effects elsewhere in the tree.
- 16:30:24 [Ian]
- PC: I hear TBL saying if you have this type of XML, then a browser could choose which functions to elaborate at any given time.
- 16:31:04 [Ian]
- TBL: I was deliberately being independent of who is doing the processing. But you are right, by not allowing side effects, you allow independence.
- 16:31:23 [Ian]
- PC: This means that this model works only for functions that don't have side effects.
- 16:31:34 [Ian]
- ...which of our functions today don't have side effects?
- 16:31:49 [Ian]
- PC: Norm gave a counter-example that adjusts the document by putting in a table of contents.
- 16:32:05 [Ian]
- TBL: The table of contents expands in place. But because it can take input from outside the tree....
- 16:32:17 [Ian]
- PC: XML Schema has side effects when there are referential integrity constraints.
- 16:32:17 [DanC]
- q?
- 16:32:32 [Ian]
- TBL: I don't see XML Schema as a function.
- 16:32:36 [Chris]
- q+
- 16:32:46 [Ian]
- TBL: I see it as a thing that only applies once all functions elaborated.
- 16:33:01 [Ian]
- TB: I don't buy that. Some people will want to validate documents with some encrypted parts.
- 16:33:24 [Ian]
- PC: E.g., encrypted header in a SOAP message.
- 16:34:21 [Norm]
- On the subject of schema ref-integrity constraints: I believe they're tree-local. So they would actually work on a tree-by-tree basis.
- 16:34:25 [Ian]
- CL: On whether schemas should be applied at the end [@@scribe missed comment@@]
- 16:34:34 [Dave]
- q+
- 16:34:55 [Chris]
- model implies you can never schema validate a function writen in an xml syntax
- 16:35:10 [Chris]
- because it dissapears before the schema processor ever sees it
- 16:35:33 [Ian]
- TBL: I think we need to design a system where people can use these functions anywhere in a document. But yes, you might want to use schema techniques to detect that some particular piece has been encrypted.
- 16:35:34 [DanC]
- q+ Paul
- 16:35:36 [TimBray]
- q+
- 16:35:48 [Ian]
- DO: I could see in this processing model that you would want to do two passes of schema validation.
- 16:36:14 [TimBray]
- Here's an 80/20 point strawman:
- 16:36:22 [TimBray]
- 1. Decrypt the parts you are equipped to
- 16:36:26 [TimBray]
- 2. Do any Xinclude
- 16:36:34 [TimBray]
- 3. Run XSLT if required
- 16:36:47 [TimBray]
- </ol>
- 16:37:12 [Ian]
- [Time check]
- 16:37:37 [DanC]
- summary (a) TimBL wants a "default -- what a document means" (b) folks want stuff like a pipieline language (c) Chris would be happy with a browser-only solution.
- 16:37:45 [Ian]
- DC: We have an IETF teleconf today.
- 16:38:32 [Dave]
- Ian, you missed my comment on trying for an 80/20 point that is simple and generally human-oriented as a first step. And you missed the same point on my earlier discussion
- 16:38:41 [Chris]
- Chris would be happy with defined pipelines of localised scope (for example, anm xml user agent scope, a SOAP scope...)
- 16:38:46 [Ian]
- Thanks DO.
- 16:39:10 [Ian]
- PC: Much of this is about the infoset. Even schema PSV doesn't touch the infoset.
- 16:39:18 [TimBray]
- 4. Validate
- 16:39:26 [Ian]
- DO: I will note that XML Schema gave extensive comments to XInclude about what they wanted in infoset.
- 16:39:40 [Ian]
- PC: I thought encryption and signing ran across infost.
- 16:39:50 [Ian]
- DO: No, they are designed to use XPath.
- 16:39:58 [Dave]
- xpath 1.0
- 16:40:03 [Ian]
- TBL: Canonicalization model.
- 16:40:22 [Ian]
- PC: When we want to sign things that depend on schema attributes, then we'll have to pull away from xpath 1.0 data model.
- 16:40:43 [Ian]
- TBL: No, when you sign something, you sign the xpath model; pre schema validation.
- 16:40:54 [TimBL]
- I am very surprised that PaulC suggests that XIncldue does not change the infoset.
- 16:41:01 [Norm]
- Me too
- 16:41:20 [Ian]
- PC: I find it interesting that we have a series of specs that act like functions, and another series that doesn't behave like this. Is this an architectural problem?
- 16:41:24 [TimBray]
- yep
- 16:41:42 [Dave]
- q+
- 16:42:25 [Ian]
- TBL: The case of encryption and dsig - not defined on surface syntax; defined on xpath, which those specs consider an infoset. They are defined on an abstract syntax.
- 16:42:52 [DanC]
- I think PC's point is about functions on infoset (i.e. abstract syntax) vs. functions on surface syntax
- 16:43:20 [Ian]
- TB parenthetically: Whatever model we take, I think we should not limit modifications to infoset; you'll need to be able to modify the syntax as well.
- 16:43:30 [DanC]
- s/modify/exchange/
- 16:43:31 [Ian]
- TB: If there's an 80/20 point, where is it? Is it as simple as saying:
- 16:43:53 [Ian]
- a) In the absence of indications to the contrary, first decrypt, then process includes, then run xslt, then validate.
- 16:43:56 [TimBL]
- q+
- 16:43:57 [Ian]
- TB: Is this worth doing?
- 16:44:10 [DanC]
- I like the idea of a user-agent processing model.
- 16:44:17 [Ian]
- s/first decrypt/first decrypt what you can/
- 16:44:17 [DanC]
- sortof.
- 16:44:59 [Ian]
- CL to TB: This means that you can assert validity of some subtrees, but must leave what you can't decrypt.
- 16:45:18 [Ian]
- DO: I like TB's idea. I think from UA perspective, most people will do validation before (something else).
- 16:45:27 [Ian]
- PC: This won't work in XSLT 2.0.
- 16:46:02 [Ian]
- DO: I hear PC would be more comfortable if schema validation were done before xslt.
- 16:46:15 [Ian]
- PC: I think that "it depends". I think that the 80/20 cut might change with XSLT 2.0.
- 16:46:33 [Ian]
- PC: ....templates will look for data types, not just element and attribute names.
- 16:46:41 [Ian]
- PC: ....if 80/20 cut changes, that makes me nervous.
- 16:46:43 [Dave]
- q?
- 16:47:02 [TimBray]
- q=
- 16:47:04 [Zakim]
- TimBray, if you meant to query the queue, please say 'q?'; if you meant to replace the queue, please say 'queue= ...'
- 16:47:09 [TimBray]
- q+
- 16:47:13 [Ian]
- TBL: When you run a C program, should you calculate strings first, or math, or built-ins?
- 16:47:36 [Ian]
- TBL: When you look at them as functions, deciding which to do first is a ridiculous question.
- 16:48:14 [Ian]
- TBL: Schema is a more interesting question. When you are looking for a piece of a document, even if you've not elaborated a piece, you may find a particular element instance.
- 16:48:30 [Ian]
- TBL: It could be that schema processing could be done as a local elaboration.
- 16:48:37 [Ian]
- q?
- 16:48:46 [Ian]
- PC: This is too simplistic a model for how schema runs.
- 16:48:46 [DanC]
- Ian, you're available to scribe next week, 18Mar, yes?
- 16:49:18 [Ian]
- PC: TBL's description is correct for simple cases.
- 16:49:38 [Ian]
- TBL: I have 2 problems with TB's proposal as the 80/20 cut.
- 16:50:00 [DanC]
- I'm slightly at risk 18Mar; travelling. plan to be available, but things could go bad.
- 16:50:08 [Ian]
- a) For one thing, it's over-constraining: if in one part of a document there is encryption and another is xinclude, I may want to do one at one moment and another on the plane.
- 16:50:28 [Dave]
- q+
- 16:50:40 [Ian]
- TBL: Making an ordered list will knock out software that does things in a different order when the order is relevant.
- 16:50:53 [Ian]
- TBL: I like the summary:
- 16:51:00 [Ian]
- - Order doesn't matter unless,
- 16:51:13 [Ian]
- - Your function applies or interacts with another part of the document.
- 16:51:19 [Norm]
- I don't think it works for subtrees either.
- 16:51:28 [Ian]
- TBL: There are a lot of cases that TB's order doesn't solve.
- 16:51:56 [Norm]
- I might have a bit of XSLT that counts things in my subtree. The processing-or-not of xinclude inside my subtree will effect the count.
- 16:52:00 [Ian]
- TBL: In my model, siblings are processed in an arbitrary order.
- 16:52:12 [DanC]
- TimBL, I suggest you take TBray's comment as feedback that your proposal isn't understood. [as he said]
- 16:52:20 [Ian]
- TB: If this order doesn't break anything substantial, then TBL's 80/20 may be acceptable. I need to reread.
- 16:52:42 [Ian]
- PC: If we attach a name to TBL's default, then we need to allow people to say "Use the default or don't."
- 16:52:55 [Norm]
- q+
- 16:53:15 [Norm]
- q-
- 16:53:15 [Ian]
- DO: I don't think we'll get to an 80/20 position on this. I think the TAG should punt on this issue. Maybe give advice to another group to discuss this.
- 16:53:18 [Ian]
- q+
- 16:53:30 [DanC]
- TimBL, over to you
- 16:53:51 [Ian]
- DO: If I can specify an attribute to say "use default processing", then I can go with that.
- 16:53:52 [TimBL]
- q=
- 16:53:53 [Zakim]
- TimBL, if you meant to query the queue, please say 'q?'; if you meant to replace the queue, please say 'queue= ...'
- 16:54:38 [Dave]
- Wonder if the rathole map will be a rathole
- 16:54:46 [DanC]
- Zakim, please put your help messages in /me actions or in -notice- thingies, not in the log.
- 16:54:47 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'please put your help messages in /me actions or in -notice- thingies, not in the log.', DanC. Try /msg Zakim help
- 16:55:02 [Stuart]
- +q
- 16:55:05 [Ian]
- PC: I agree that, if we could define components that met TBL's constraints (local subtrees only), then having any kind of processing model would be easier.
- 16:55:36 [DanC]
- Chris, I'd like to see you write something up about an xml-user-agent way of doing things.
- 16:55:57 [Ian]
- ------------------
- 16:55:58 [Dave]
- Roy, did you get my text?
- 16:56:06 [Ian]
- TBL: Please recall to send 1-page summaries by Weds.
- 16:56:19 [Zakim]
- -TBray
- 16:56:19 [Zakim]
- -Stuart
- 16:56:20 [Ian]
- Adjourned.
- 16:56:29 [Zakim]
- -Roy
- 16:56:30 [Zakim]
- -ChrisL
- 16:56:31 [Zakim]
- -Ian
- 16:56:38 [Zakim]
- -DanC
- 16:57:02 [Stuart]
- I think it's not just about confining an effect to a sub-tree. I think the sources that an XML function draws on are also significant
- 16:57:20 [Zakim]
- -TimBL
- 16:59:41 [DanC]
- Ian, do you think the sort of summary I sent about last week's meeting is sufficiently easy to do that it doesn't impose a burden?
- 16:59:52 [Ian]
- I haven't seen it.
- 17:00:23 [DanC]
- summary has (a) attendance (b) list of agenda items, with actions and decisions under each.
- 17:00:46 [Ian]
- URL?
- 17:00:48 [Stuart]
- I think this is the case with Norm's TOC example which draws it's influences broadly from a document.
- 17:01:24 [DanC]
- * notes from 4 Mar TAG telcon [was: IRC log?] Dan Connolly (Fri, Mar 08 2002) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0030.html
- 17:02:43 [Ian]
- Yes, that's do-able.
- 17:03:05 [Stuart]
- bye
- 17:03:08 [Stuart]
- Stuart has left #tagmem
- 17:04:04 [TimBL]
- Ian, I will be around. i want grab some lunch while the q is short.
- 17:04:16 [TimBL]
- RRSAgent, bye