IRC log of xproc on 2007-07-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:52:46 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:52:46 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:52:48 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:52:50 [Norm]
Date: 19 July 2007
14:52:52 [Norm]
14:52:54 [Norm]
Meeting number: 76, T-minus 15 weeks
14:52:58 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:53:00 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:53:02 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:55:39 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
14:56:22 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc
14:56:37 [Norm]
Regrets: Richard, Henry, Rui
14:57:15 [ruilopes]
un-regret for me, norm :)
14:57:15 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
14:57:15 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
15:00:27 [Norm]
Regrets: Richard, Henry
15:00:58 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:01:04 [Zakim]
15:01:04 [Zakim]
15:01:25 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:02:00 [Zakim]
15:02:05 [ruilopes]
Zakim, [ip is me
15:02:08 [Zakim]
15:02:12 [Zakim]
15:02:15 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
15:03:37 [Zakim]
15:03:58 [Norm]
zakim, ??P18 is andrew
15:03:58 [Zakim]
+andrew; got it
15:04:01 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:04:06 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:04:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PGrosso, Norm, ruilopes, Alessandro_Vernet, Alex_Milowski, andrew
15:04:10 [Norm]
zakim, andrew is AndrewF
15:04:10 [Zakim]
+AndrewF; got it
15:04:17 [Zakim]
15:04:37 [Norm]
Present: Paul, Norm, Rui, Alessandro, Alex, Andrew, Mohamed
15:04:40 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-Office
15:04:40 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
15:04:41 [Zakim]
15:04:44 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:04:44 [Norm]
15:04:52 [Norm]
15:04:56 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:04:56 [Norm]
15:05:03 [Norm]
15:05:13 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 26 July 2007
15:05:41 [Norm]
Norm, Rui (for two weeks) give regrets, Paul to chair
15:06:07 [Norm]
15:06:08 [Norm]
15:06:28 [Norm]
Topic: Review of 17 July 2007 draft.
15:06:28 [Norm]
15:07:06 [Norm]
No comments
15:07:16 [Norm]
Topic: "Minimum" set of serialization options
15:07:16 [Norm]
15:07:38 [Norm]
Alex: There's not a lot of flexibility in the serialization spec.
15:07:46 [Norm]
...The spec is very clear about what you can/can't do in each method
15:08:49 [Norm]
...I plan to create a section to outline the serialization options.
15:09:15 [Norm]
...I'll also clarify the semantics of the options
15:10:03 [Norm]
Norm: We still have some flexibility; we can specify default values and not require any other values to be supported.
15:12:47 [Norm]
Alex: Even if we enumerate the defaults; the problem is that if we have these options users may use them
15:13:05 [Norm]
Norm: I'm suggesting that we just don't require that all the options be supported.
15:13:47 [MSM]
[Sanity check - Norm is talking about a floor, not a ceiling, right?]
15:13:54 [Norm]
Uh. Yeah.
15:15:01 [Norm]
Norm gives up; will wait for concrete text to comment on
15:17:13 [Norm]
Michael: I'd paraphrase by saying that we don't need to require anything that serialization doesn't require us to require. I think it would be useful to have a list of the things that host languages are required to require. I think that's App D of the Serialization spec.
15:17:30 [Norm]
...We don't need to require implementations to support some of those if they're tedious.
15:18:15 [Norm]
Alex: Appendix D is a checklist of impl. defined features. I thought Norm was more concerned about the minumum bar for features.
15:18:21 [Norm]
15:19:16 [Norm]
Michael: The set of features is partitioned into things that impl. are required to support, ones that a language could support, and features which the serialization spec leaves implementation-dependent.
15:19:17 [alexmilowski]
"The values NFC and none MUST be supported by the serializer."
15:20:30 [MSM]
Section 10 says of host languages: "Specifications that set conformance criteria for their use of Serialization MUST NOT change the semantic definitions of Serialization as given in this specification, except by subsetting and/or compatible extensions. It is the responsibility of the host language to specify how serialization errors should be handled."
15:21:50 [Norm]
Topic: p:map proposal.
15:21:50 [Norm]
15:22:53 [Norm]
Mohamed: It has had a lot of names, map, catalog, etc. The need was identified a long time ago, especially for xinclude-with-sequence. The proposal was to make a tool which can help defining a mapping between documents available and URIs.
15:23:26 [Norm]
...Maybe it's a bit too much for V1. Maybe we need to get more experience. A lighter version might be useful for defining mappings for XInclude.
15:23:49 [Norm]
...For V1 in XSLT, we don't have access to the document created by result-document extensions.
15:23:57 [Norm]
s/XSLT/XSLT 1.0/
15:24:19 [Norm]
...It seems like there are a lot of use cases where there would be value in being able to provide hints to the pipeline.
15:24:44 [Norm]
...The other point was, even if we don't care about p:map or something, are we going to say something about how consistent resolution of names is within a pipeline.
15:25:12 [Norm]
...I think we need to open this box and try to draft something.
15:25:43 [Norm]
Norm: I thought years ago that we were going define a "pool" from which steps would get their URIs.
15:25:58 [Norm]
...It became clear that we wouldn't get consensus on that.
15:26:13 [Norm]
Alex: I'm sympathetic, I just don't think we can do that in V1.
15:26:31 [Norm]
...I can solve this by orchastrating a couple of pipelines.
15:26:40 [Norm]
...We'll learn if we really need a language construct for this.
15:28:01 [Norm]
Norm: I think there's risk of pain to users, but a lot of benefit in waiting for V2
15:28:17 [Norm]
Mohamed: So what's the proposed answer? Just implementation-defined.
15:28:52 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, implementation-defined, with maybe a note about the value of the ability to get access to URIs.
15:30:07 [Norm]
Some discussion of how this interacts with the proposed base-uri and make-absolute steps.
15:32:01 [Norm]
Mohamed: I'm still unsure, but maybe we should just move on.
15:33:53 [Norm]
Alex: It gives people the flexibility to use proxies, caches, etc.
15:34:26 [Norm]
Mohamed: I just want to be sure that every place we have URI, we can use a condition to know which implementation we're running.
15:34:41 [MSM]
[it's important to give people some flexibility - but it's also important to give users of the term "conforming processor" a useful term defining a useful class of processor -- the utility of the phrase "conforming processor" is really the only thing any spec has to sell]
15:36:21 [Norm]
Norm: I don't hear consensus to add a step or language feature in V1.
15:36:32 [Norm]
Mohamed: I agree. I just want the spec to be clear about resolution.
15:37:07 [MSM]
q+ to ask about extension
15:37:14 [Norm]
ack msm
15:37:14 [Zakim]
MSM, you wanted to ask about extension
15:37:47 [Norm]
Michael: Does the the flexibility that we're talking about extend to allowing extension mechanisms to provide the functions Mohamed is talking about?
15:38:02 [Norm]
Norm: Yes. The constraints on extension are fairly limited.
15:38:49 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to clarify resolution of URIs in the spec
15:39:24 [Norm]
Mohamed: I just want to be sure, I felt that XProc was trying to resolve this part of XSLT problem, to make it possible to embed it and orchestrate it better.
15:41:29 [Norm]
Norm: I think we've improved things, we can chain arbitrary steps together; we just haven't tried to come between URI resolution and the bits you get back. I'm not sure we *can* go there.
15:41:48 [Norm]
Topic: p:make-uris-absolute proposal
15:41:48 [Norm]
15:42:38 [Norm]
Norm: It's hard to do this any other way; I'm in favor.
15:42:56 [Norm]
Alex: I'm in favor too
15:43:00 [Norm]
...Required or optional?
15:43:12 [Norm]
Norm: I'm inclined to make steps required unless they're an enormous burden to implement.
15:43:20 [Norm]
Proposal: Required step V1.
15:43:25 [Norm]
15:43:35 [Norm]
Topic: p:add-xml-base-attributes proposal
15:43:35 [Norm]
15:44:08 [Norm]
Proposal: Required step V1.
15:44:14 [Norm]
15:44:19 [Norm]
Topic: Grouping in p:wrap-sequence
15:44:19 [Norm]
15:45:22 [Norm]
Norm attempts to ask his question
15:45:51 [Norm]
Norm: I think all we need to do is make the output a sequence and clarify the adjacent stuff.
15:45:59 [Norm]
15:46:21 [Norm]
Topic: Making href optional on p:log proposal
15:46:21 [Norm]
15:47:04 [Norm]
Alessandro: My understanding is that p:log is intended for debugging; in general, when I look at other similar constructs, you don't have to specify where the data is going to go.
15:47:29 [Norm]
...Usually where the data goes is configured externally. I'd like to be able to do that in XProc.
15:47:40 [Norm]
Norm: Yeah, I can see that.
15:48:11 [Norm]
Mohamed: Since we say that there's only one p:log for each port, I think it makes sense.
15:48:21 [Norm]
15:48:34 [MoZ]
s/only one/only at most one/
15:48:43 [Norm]
Topic: Questions about defaulting and syntactic shortcuts
15:48:44 [Norm]
15:50:03 [Norm]
Norm: I don't really want to do these things, but like I said in the message, I don't have grounds to turn them down.
15:50:34 [Norm]
Alex: I'd like AVTs.
15:52:19 [Norm]
Norm: One of my input shortcuts clearly doesn't work, I don't think we should do any of them.
15:52:25 [Norm]
Alex: I don't think so either.
15:52:31 [Norm]
No changes.
15:52:38 [Norm]
Topic: Questions about xsl:message from XSLT
15:52:38 [Norm]
15:53:31 [Norm]
Norm: I think XSLT messages are a secondary output that you only get a hold of if there's an error.
15:53:38 [Norm]
Alex: I think you're right.
15:54:20 [Norm]
No changes.
15:54:26 [Norm]
Topic: Issues between here and Last Call:
15:55:44 [Norm]
Norm: I think base URI handling is handled by the steps we added today.
15:55:52 [Norm]
Alex: If a document comes out of a step, what's its base URI/
15:56:15 [Norm]
Norm: I think each step needs to say how it produces the base URIs of the documents it produces.
15:56:55 [Norm]
Mohamed: Do we need a p:base-uri() function?
15:56:57 [Norm]
Norm: I don't know.
15:58:57 [Norm]
Norm: Does anyone else know of something that stands between here and Last Call.
15:59:12 [Norm]
Alex: Do we have to review our use cases and make sure we've hit them?
15:59:18 [Norm]
Norm: Have to, I don't know, should we, yes?
15:59:38 [Norm]
Mohamed: I'll give it a try.
16:00:40 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
16:01:57 [Zakim]
16:01:58 [Zakim]
16:01:59 [Zakim]
16:02:00 [Zakim]
16:02:01 [Zakim]
16:02:03 [Zakim]
16:02:04 [Zakim]
16:02:09 [Zakim]
16:02:10 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
16:02:11 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, PGrosso, [IPcaller], Alessandro_Vernet, Alex_Milowski, ruilopes, AndrewF, MoZ, MSM
16:02:19 [Norm]
So for the agenda next week, I think it'll consist of reviewing the draft that Alex and I produce and, if no one raises any issues, voting to take it to Last Call.
16:02:22 [Norm]
16:02:27 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:02:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
16:02:32 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world visibile
16:02:32 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'set logs world visibile', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:02:38 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
16:02:43 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:02:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
16:03:16 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
16:03:31 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:03:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
16:07:38 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
16:11:45 [MoZ]
Norm, are you joining on xsl ?
16:13:29 [Norm]
Oh, rats. Yes. One sec.
16:14:16 [MSM]
I'm going to tell her you said that.
17:18:28 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc
18:03:48 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
18:12:02 [Norm]
rrsagent, bye
18:12:02 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
18:12:02 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to clarify resolution of URIs in the spec [1]
18:12:02 [RRSAgent]
recorded in