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 http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-irc

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: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/27-agenda ; last call comments: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments.html

14:53:35 [Norm]

Meeting: XML Processing Model WG

14:53:35 [Norm]

Date: 27 September 2007

14:53:35 [Norm]

Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/27-agenda

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]

+Norm

15:01:28 [Zakim]

+[ArborText]

15:01:30 [avernet]

avernet has joined #xproc

15:02:18 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

15:02:42 [ruilopes]

Zakim, [ is me

15:02:42 [Zakim]

+ruilopes; got it

15:02:48 [Zakim]

+??P16

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:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ

15:04:26 [Zakim]

+Murray_Maloney

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]

+MoZ

15:05:48 [Norm]

Present: Norm, Paul, Rui, Alessandro, Murray, Mohamed

15:05:57 [Norm]

Topic: Accept this agenda?

15:05:57 [Norm]

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/27-agenda

15:06:01 [Norm]

Accepted.

15:06:09 [Norm]

Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

15:06:09 [Norm]

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/13-minutes

15:06:09 [Norm]

Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

15:06:09 [Norm]

-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/13-minutes

15:06:14 [Norm]

Accepted.

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]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0160.html

15:09:06 [Norm]

Comments list: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments.html

15:09:50 [MoZ]

here is the last requirements for XSLT Streaming http://www.w3.org/mid/46F97ED6.90908@u-turnmediagroup.com

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]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0155.html

15:11:14 [Andrew]

Andrew has joined #xproc

15:11:46 [Zakim]

+??P35

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]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0149.html

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]

+Alex_Milowski

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]

No.

15:20:24 [Norm]

Topic: Wrapping of nodes into a document

15:20:24 [Norm]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0148.html

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]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0146.html

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]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0139.html

15:29:05 [MoZ]

here : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0142.html

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]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0133.html

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]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0143.html

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]

+1

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]

s/library/pipeline-library/

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]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Sep/0022.html

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]

p:validate-with-*

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]

validate-via-the-language-known-as-xml-schema

15:48:17 [Norm]

Accepted.

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]

None.

15:57:48 [Norm]

Adjourned.

15:57:50 [Zakim]

-PGrosso

15:57:51 [Zakim]

-Murray_Maloney

15:57:52 [Zakim]

-Norm

15:57:54 [Zakim]

-Andrew

15:57:56 [Zakim]

-MoZ

15:57:57 [Zakim]

-ruilopes

15:57:58 [Zakim]

-Alex_Milowski

15:57:59 [Zakim]

-avernet

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 http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-minutes.html 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 http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-actions.rdf :

18:18:53 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Norm to investigate [1]

18:18:53 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-irc#T15-10-17

18:18:53 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Norm to clarify [2]

18:18:53 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-irc#T15-12-41

18:18:53 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Norm to clarify [3]

18:18:53 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-irc#T15-26-25

18:18:53 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Norm to follow up. [4]

18:18:53 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-irc#T15-27-50

18:18:53 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Norm to put "parameters as strings" on next week's agenda [5]

18:18:53 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-irc#T15-49-13

18:18:53 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Norm to ask Mike if he thinks that might be good enough. [6]

18:18:53 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-xproc-irc#T15-57-21