IRC log of xproc on 2007-09-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:48:27 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:48:27 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:48:31 [Norm]
Zakim, this will be xproc
14:48:36 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
14:49:09 [Norm]
Regrets: Richard
14:50:26 [ruilopes]
ruilopes has joined #xproc
14:52:55 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: XProc WG meets 27 Sep 2007: ; last call comments:
14:53:35 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:53:35 [Norm]
Date: 27 September 2007
14:53:35 [Norm]
14:53:35 [Norm]
number Meeting: 85, T-minus 6 weeks
14:53:35 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:53:36 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:53:38 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:57:43 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
14:58:32 [Norm]
On the agenda already, MSM
15:00:46 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:00:51 [Zakim]
15:01:28 [Zakim]
15:01:30 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc
15:02:18 [Zakim]
15:02:42 [ruilopes]
Zakim, [ is me
15:02:42 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
15:02:48 [Zakim]
15:02:51 [avernet]
zakiim, ? is avernet
15:02:57 [Norm]
Regrets: Michael, Richard
15:02:58 [avernet]
zakim, ? is avernet
15:02:58 [Zakim]
+avernet; got it
15:03:22 [Norm]
Regrets: Michael, Richard, Henry
15:03:27 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:03:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, ruilopes, avernet
15:03:58 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
15:03:58 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
15:04:26 [Zakim]
15:05:05 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:05:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, ruilopes, avernet, Murray_Maloney
15:05:16 [Zakim]
15:05:48 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Paul, Rui, Alessandro, Murray, Mohamed
15:05:57 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:05:57 [Norm]
15:06:01 [Norm]
15:06:09 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:06:09 [Norm]
15:06:09 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:06:09 [Norm]
15:06:14 [Norm]
15:06:31 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 4 October 2007
15:06:46 [Norm]
Murray gives regrets.
15:07:08 [Norm]
Topic: Review of XSLT streaming specifications
15:07:56 [Norm]
Mohamed: It's the requirements document that's ready for review.
15:08:23 [Norm]
Murray will take a look.
15:08:27 [Norm]
Norm: Thanks, Murray.
15:08:44 [Norm]
Topic: p:add-xml-base
15:08:44 [Norm]
15:09:06 [Norm]
Comments list:
15:09:50 [MoZ]
here is the last requirements for XSLT Streaming
15:10:03 [Norm]
Norm wonders what the intended semantics of the "all" option were.
15:10:17 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to investigate
15:10:27 [Norm]
Topic: Scope of step types
15:10:27 [Norm]
15:11:14 [Andrew]
Andrew has joined #xproc
15:11:46 [Zakim]
15:11:50 [Andrew]
zakim, ? is Andrew
15:11:50 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:12:35 [Norm]
Norm: I think we only meant for types declared in the pipeline and in the imported libraries, not recursively.
15:12:37 [Norm]
General agreement.
15:12:41 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to clarify
15:12:52 [Norm]
Topic: Is a conformant processor supposed to raise xml:id or xml:base errors
15:12:52 [Norm]
15:13:54 [Norm]
Mohamed: We allow xml:base and xml:id everywhere in the pipeline document, so what is the processor supposed to do if there are xml:id or xml:base errors.
15:14:15 [Norm]
Norm: I understand xml:id errors, but what are xml:base errors?
15:14:23 [Norm]
Mohamed: I was thinking of bad characters or bad URIs.
15:15:03 [Norm]
Norm: I'm of two minds.
15:15:18 [Norm]
Paul: If it doesn't have anything to do with the pipeline, I don't see why we should give errors for it.
15:16:04 [Norm]
Norm: This is about xml:id attributes *in the pipeline*
15:16:40 [Norm]
Paul: This is a metaissue, it's the pipeline parser that will see the errors.
15:16:51 [Zakim]
15:17:13 [Norm]
Norm: I'm not inclined to make it a fatal error.
15:17:17 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:17:24 [Norm]
Murray: Do we use the xml:ids?
15:17:26 [Norm]
Norm: No.
15:17:57 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone want more aggressive rules in XProc?
15:20:12 [Norm]
15:20:24 [Norm]
Topic: Wrapping of nodes into a document
15:20:24 [Norm]
15:20:37 [alexmilowski]
BTW, the 'all' option means every element gets an xml:base attribute
15:22:31 [Norm]
Norm: So we should say "element, processing-instruction, or document nodes", yes?
15:22:56 [Norm]
Mohamed: That would be half the question, but the other half would be to say on the select that only nodes of certain types will be wrapped as document nodes.
15:23:57 [Norm]
Norm: So we need to make it clear that what is selected can be a document.
15:25:19 [Norm]
Murray: It's clear to me that what appears on any output must be a document. A wrapper around a bunch of attributes is not a document.
15:25:34 [Norm]
...We've already established the rules, so we just need to clarify it.
15:25:42 [Norm]
Alessandro: It could be one document or a sequence of documents.
15:26:20 [Norm]
Norm: But I think Murray is right, we just need to clarify.
15:26:25 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to clarify
15:26:34 [Norm]
Topic: <input> for <pipeline>
15:26:34 [Norm]
15:27:25 [Norm]
Norm: Richard doesn't think that p:input on pipeline should have a binding.
15:27:38 [Norm]
Norm: But I think we intended the binding to be the default if no external binding was given.
15:27:50 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to follow up.
15:28:05 [Norm]
Topic: Scope of stpe names
15:28:05 [Norm]
15:29:05 [MoZ]
here :
15:29:21 [Norm]
Norm: I'm content with Richard's editorial suggestion, anyone disagree?
15:29:32 [Norm]
Topic: Viewport
15:29:32 [Norm]
15:30:30 [Norm]
Norm: I think this got resovled in the thread
15:31:53 [Norm]
No one disagrees.
15:33:37 [Norm]
Topic: pipeline library
15:33:37 [Norm]
15:35:15 [Norm]
Norm: So the question is, if you hand a pipeline *library* to a processor should it run a particular pipeline.
15:36:06 [Norm]
Norm: Seems to me that the implementation should take an option to specify which library
15:36:17 [Norm]
Rui: It's like make or ant, defaulting to a particular target.
15:36:25 [Norm]
Murray: But we're not recreating Make here
15:36:30 [Norm]
Rui: Some of the use cases are very similar
15:36:51 [Norm]
Murray: I seem to recall having this discussion; we said you can run a pipeline by name; it feels wrong to run a library.
15:37:07 [Norm]
Norm: I think the Make/ant use case is a little bit compelling
15:37:46 [Norm]
Norm muses out loud about running the first pipeline
15:38:02 [Norm]
Murray: If we're going to go down this road, I think we should provide explicit syntax.
15:38:21 [Norm]
Norm: Do we want to provide explicit syntax for this?
15:38:47 [Norm]
Alessandro: I'm not moved; I see why Make and ant do it, it doesn't seem like it's a very large distinction between a Makefile and a library that would be used; but we're having this distinction in XProc.
15:39:07 [Norm]
...So it makes sense to me that what you run is a pipeline not a library.
15:39:17 [Norm]
Rui: You can run a jar file if the manifest gives a default class.
15:39:45 [alexmilowski]
15:39:47 [Norm]
Murray: I don't think we should do this as an afterthought; and I don't think we should do this.
15:40:00 [Norm]
...It seems like creeping featurism.
15:40:09 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:40:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, ruilopes, avernet, Murray_Maloney, +95247aaaa, Andrew, Alex_Milowski
15:40:18 [MoZ]
Zakim, aaaa is MoZ
15:40:18 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
15:40:22 [Norm]
Question: should we add a feature to establish the default pipeline in a library?
15:40:32 [Norm]
15:41:44 [Norm]
Y: 2; N: 6 (3 concur)
15:42:15 [Norm]
Norm: I don't see support for it. Anyone object to leaving it out of V1?
15:42:44 [Norm]
Murray wonders what Richard and Henry would have said. Norm does too, for that matter.
15:42:58 [Norm]
Topic: Saxonica comments, sections 1 and 2
15:42:58 [Norm]
15:43:49 [Norm]
Norm: I'm inclined to agree with his first comment.
15:44:37 [Norm]
Norm: On his second, we run afoul of starting names with "xml".
15:44:49 [Norm]
Murray: I thought we wanted all the verbs to start with "validate".
15:44:57 [Norm]
Norm: Oh, you're right, this way they sort together.
15:45:05 [Norm]
Alex: So how about validate-with-...
15:45:07 [ruilopes]
15:46:17 [Norm]
Norm: Seems to me we have too choices; we could say "Oh, c'mon Mike..." or we could change them.
15:46:25 [Norm]
Alessandro: I think validate-with would be clearer.
15:46:34 [MoZ]
+1 for validate-with-
15:47:18 [Norm]
Murray: What about just "validate" and peek at the input?
15:47:28 [Norm]
Alex: We decided we didn't want that.
15:47:51 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone object to renaming them validate-with?
15:48:03 [alexmilowski]
15:48:17 [Norm]
15:49:13 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to put "parameters as strings" on next week's agenda
15:51:48 [Norm]
Alex: What about point 8?
15:52:00 [Norm]
Murray: Do we need to have a section that makes our vagueness more explicit.
15:52:18 [alexmilowski]
"Infoset Processing
15:52:18 [alexmilowski]
At a minimum, an XML document is represented and manipulated as an XML Information Set. The use of supersets, augmented information sets, or data models that can be represented or conceptualized as information sets should be allowed, and in some instances, encouraged (e.g. for the XPath 2.0 Data Model).
15:52:18 [alexmilowski]
15:52:26 [alexmilowski]
We say that in our requirements document.
15:53:54 [Norm]
Norm: What's now in 2.6.1 probably needs to be further up in the document
15:55:00 [Norm]
Alex: I think we need to say something explicit about being based on the Infoset
15:55:29 [Norm]
Murray: I think what goes between the steps is a putative XML document. It could be an infoset, it could be an XDM, it could be an XPath 1.0 NodeSet, it could be any number of different things. And it depends on your implementation how you're going to do that.
15:55:48 [Norm]
...We want you to bear in mind however, that it is something that could be mapped into an XML document. We're talking about a theoretical, or putative, document.
15:56:22 [Norm]
Alex: That's what using infoset would give us.
15:57:11 [Norm]
Norm: I think what we have in 2.6.1 is probably good enough, we should just move it up.
15:57:21 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to ask Mike if he thinks that might be good enough.
15:57:35 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business
15:57:41 [Norm]
15:57:48 [Norm]
15:57:50 [Zakim]
15:57:51 [Zakim]
15:57:52 [Zakim]
15:57:54 [Zakim]
15:57:56 [Zakim]
15:57:57 [Zakim]
15:57:58 [Zakim]
15:57:59 [Zakim]
15:58:01 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:58:01 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
15:58:03 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, PGrosso, [IPcaller], ruilopes, avernet, Murray_Maloney, MoZ, Andrew, Alex_Milowski
15:58:05 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:58:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
15:58:17 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
15:58:24 [MoZ]
Norm, there is xsl in 2 minutes
16:38:36 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
16:39:14 [ht]
Morning norm -- all well?
16:40:11 [Norm]
Hi ht
16:40:14 [Norm]
Yes, all is well.
16:40:32 [Norm]
If you look in the minutes from today, there's a question in your direction (and Richards)
16:40:39 [ht]
Will do
16:41:55 [Norm]
How's the west coast? Are you in Redmond now, or still in the bay area?
16:42:08 [ht]
Mountain View -- Verisign
16:42:44 [ht]
Weather has been gorgeous -- no fog, warm, no wind, clear, makes me remember the _good_ parts of living here...
16:42:58 [ht]
Heading for Redmond this evening
16:43:36 [Norm]
Safe travels
17:42:02 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
18:18:53 [Norm]
RRSAgent, bye
18:18:53 [RRSAgent]
I see 6 open action items saved in :
18:18:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to investigate [1]
18:18:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:18:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to clarify [2]
18:18:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:18:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to clarify [3]
18:18:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:18:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to follow up. [4]
18:18:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:18:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to put "parameters as strings" on next week's agenda [5]
18:18:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:18:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to ask Mike if he thinks that might be good enough. [6]
18:18:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in