IRC log of xproc on 2007-10-18
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:58:35 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #xproc
- 14:58:35 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-irc
- 14:58:37 [Norm]
- Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
- 14:58:39 [Norm]
- Date: 18 October 2007
- 14:58:43 [Norm]
- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/18-agenda
- 14:58:45 [Norm]
- number Meeting: 88, T-minus 2 weeks
- 14:58:47 [Norm]
- Chair: Norm
- 14:58:49 [Norm]
- Scribe: Norm
- 14:58:51 [Norm]
- ScribeNick: Norm
- 15:01:16 [avernet]
- avernet has joined #xproc
- 15:01:21 [Norm]
- Zakim, this will be xproc
- 15:01:21 [Zakim]
- ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
- 15:01:33 [Zakim]
- XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
- 15:01:40 [Zakim]
- +[ArborText]
- 15:02:15 [Zakim]
- +??P8
- 15:02:19 [avernet]
- zakim, ? is avernet
- 15:02:19 [Zakim]
- +avernet; got it
- 15:03:10 [MoZ]
- Zakim, what is the code ?
- 15:03:10 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
- 15:03:32 [ht]
- zakim, please call ht-781
- 15:03:32 [Zakim]
- ok, ht; the call is being made
- 15:03:34 [Zakim]
- +Ht
- 15:03:52 [ht]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 15:03:56 [Zakim]
- + +95247aaaa
- 15:04:00 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see PGrosso, avernet, Ht, +95247aaaa
- 15:04:03 [MoZ]
- Zakim, aaaa is me
- 15:04:12 [Zakim]
- +MoZ; got it
- 15:05:26 [Andrew]
- Andrew has joined #xproc
- 15:05:30 [ht]
- Norm, shall I start the call w/o you?
- 15:05:55 [Zakim]
- +??P25
- 15:06:02 [Andrew]
- zakim, ? is Andrew
- 15:06:03 [Zakim]
- +Andrew; got it
- 15:06:28 [MoZ]
- Zakim, who is on the phone?
- 15:06:28 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see PGrosso, avernet, Ht, MoZ, Andrew
- 15:06:38 [ht]
- http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/18-agenda
- 15:08:06 [ht]
- scribe: ht
- 15:08:12 [ht]
- HST: Agenda approved
- 15:08:27 [ht]
- http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/11-minutes
- 15:08:48 [ht]
- HST: Minutes approved
- 15:09:29 [Zakim]
- +Norm
- 15:09:30 [ht]
- HST: Next meeting 25 October
- 15:10:20 [ht]
- HST: NW apologies for 25 Oct and 1 Nov, HST to be in the chair _pro tem_
- 15:11:38 [ht]
- HST: Charter has been extended for 1 year
- 15:11:50 [ht]
- PG: F2F agenda?
- 15:12:08 [ht]
- NW: one day on comment processing, one day on the future, I guess
- 15:12:29 [ht]
- PG: I find a detailed agenda helps folk to be prepared
- 15:12:43 [ht]
- NW: Well, item 1 is "Read and be familiar with the details of the issues list"
- 15:12:53 [ht]
- scribenick: Norm
- 15:13:13 [Norm]
- s/scribe: ht/scribenick: ht/
- 15:13:24 [Norm]
- Topic: Charter extension
- 15:13:27 [Norm]
- Extended 1 yaer.
- 15:13:33 [Norm]
- s/yaer/year/
- 15:14:06 [Norm]
- Topic: Review of action items
- 15:14:36 [Norm]
- A-86-01: Alex to review XSLT streaming requirements before the face-to-face.
- 15:14:41 [Norm]
- Continued
- 15:14:48 [Norm]
- A-86-03: Henry to reply to the commenter (non-string parameters; issue 30)
- 15:14:52 [Norm]
- Completed
- 15:14:58 [Norm]
- A-86-04: Henry to craft the prose to cover the defaulted output case
- 15:15:17 [Norm]
- Continued
- 15:15:22 [Norm]
- A-87-01: Norm to take a stab at reconsidering the default inputs feature applying it only to ports that are not primary
- 15:15:25 [Norm]
- Continued.
- 15:15:30 [Norm]
- A-87-02: Alex to propose some text about imports and circularity
- 15:15:34 [Norm]
- Continued
- 15:15:39 [Norm]
- A-87-03: Norm to attempt to incorporate Richard's draft text about step type scope
- 15:15:42 [Norm]
- Continued.
- 15:16:10 [Norm]
- Topic: Comment 29: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted) output
- 15:16:10 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#029
- 15:16:22 [Norm]
- Continued pending Henry's action
- 15:16:37 [Norm]
- Topic: Comment 6: Bindings for pipeline inputs
- 15:16:37 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#006
- 15:17:02 [Norm]
- Continued pending Norm's action
- 15:17:08 [Norm]
- Topic: Comment 18: Scope of step types
- 15:17:08 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#018
- 15:17:15 [Norm]
- Continued pending Norm's action
- 15:17:22 [Norm]
- Topic: Comment 24: Passing PSVIs between steps
- 15:17:22 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#024
- 15:19:16 [Norm]
- Norm outlines the issue and summarizes Jeni's observed options
- 15:19:58 [Norm]
- Henry: I think we leave it impl. defined.
- 15:20:53 [Norm]
- Some discussion of how defaulted attributes fit in: probably covered by the spirit of the best efforts clause.
- 15:21:43 [Norm]
- Proposal: Leave it implementation-defined.
- 15:21:44 [Norm]
- Accepted.
- 15:22:21 [Norm]
- ACTION: Henry will respond to the commenter on comment 24: passing PSVIs between steps.
- 15:22:30 [Norm]
- Topic: Comment 7: Saxonica comments on sections 1 and 2
- 15:22:31 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#007
- 15:23:22 [Norm]
- Norm reviews the points in Mike's message.
- 15:23:27 [Norm]
- Point 1: accepted.
- 15:23:55 [Norm]
- Point 2: changed validate-* to validate-with-*; accepted.
- 15:25:13 [MoZ]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Sep/0034.html
- 15:26:38 [Norm]
- Point 3-6 are editorial.
- 15:26:47 [Norm]
- Point 7: rejected, also made a separate issue
- 15:27:32 [Norm]
- Point 8: discussion
- 15:27:51 [Norm]
- Henry: I think we're pretty clear that we're not answering this question.
- 15:27:56 [Norm]
- ...We're trying not to be too precise.
- 15:29:30 [Norm]
- http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#input-output
- 15:30:38 [Norm]
- Henry: No, that doesn't work. An XML document isn't an Infoset, the infoset is just a set of terms
- 15:31:26 [Norm]
- Henry: But maybe it's ok.
- 15:31:30 [Norm]
- ...Sure let's try this.
- 15:31:36 [Norm]
- Norm: What about A.3?
- 15:31:41 [Norm]
- Henry: Yes, that looks fine too.
- 15:32:14 [Norm]
- Norm: Anyone unhappy with the editor's resolution of Mike's point 8?
- 15:32:16 [Norm]
- None heard.
- 15:32:52 [Norm]
- Point 9:
- 15:32:53 [Norm]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Oct/0003.html
- 15:34:03 [Norm]
- Norm: Anyone unhappy with the editor's resolution of Mike's point 9?
- 15:34:10 [Norm]
- None heard.
- 15:34:22 [Norm]
- That leaves some editorial clarifications, but I think we've covered the technical issues
- 15:34:42 [Norm]
- Topic: Comment 12: Saxonica comments on sections 3 and 4
- 15:34:42 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#012
- 15:35:11 [Norm]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Sep/0023.html
- 15:35:54 [Norm]
- Let's leave the "editorial" and "clarification" points to the editor unless they turn out not to be
- 15:36:00 [Norm]
- Henry: I'm prepared to skip to 7.
- 15:37:11 [Norm]
- Henry: I think he's right.
- 15:37:19 [Norm]
- Norm: I don't think these apply to the things *inside* the elements in the step
- 15:37:40 [Norm]
- Henry: So you meant "children" not "contains"? If so, you'll have to repeat it endlessly.
- 15:37:43 [Norm]
- Norm: Uhm...
- 15:38:12 [Norm]
- Henry: Can't we just say that these rules don't apply inside p:inline?
- 15:38:17 [Norm]
- Norm: Perhaps
- 15:39:42 [Norm]
- Some discussion about what constitutes a step.
- 15:40:10 [Norm]
- Norm: I think children would work.
- 15:40:38 [Norm]
- Henry: What about giving the fifth and sixth bullets a parallel construction
- 15:40:51 [Norm]
- Henry: If any element in the XProc namespace other than p:inline, or any step, has text node children...
- 15:40:56 [Norm]
- Norm: Sure, that would work for me.
- 15:41:11 [Norm]
- Norm: I think that resolves point 7.
- 15:41:35 [Norm]
- Point 8:
- 15:42:59 [Norm]
- Henry: I think replacing "within its container" by "immediately contained by that steps container"
- 15:43:39 [Norm]
- ...Or if we've formally defined subpipline as the immediately contained steps, then "the last step in document order in the subpipeline"
- 15:43:51 [Norm]
- Norm: I'm happy to attempt to clarify that.
- 15:44:05 [Norm]
- Point 11:
- 15:46:30 [Norm]
- Some of this is editorail.
- 15:46:48 [Norm]
- Norm: I think we have clarified that select only selects elements or documents.
- 15:47:07 [Norm]
- Henry: I've always said that select needs the same namespace fixup we already described.
- 15:48:41 [Norm]
- Henry: We've already re-worded 4.2 so there isn't a double "each" anymore.
- 15:49:08 [Norm]
- Norm: But that leaves "wrapped" and an explicit pointer to 2.6.1
- 15:50:32 [Norm]
- Norm: The select question points to 5.2 and aon through to p:input where it's covered.
- 15:51:41 [Norm]
- Henry: No, I don't think we want to make the reference to 2.6.1 explicit.
- 15:51:58 [Norm]
- ACTION: Norm to see if the commenter agree's we've addressed his concerns.
- 15:52:41 [Norm]
- Point 12:
- 15:52:51 [Norm]
- Henry: I think we can replace "aggregated" with "concatentated" here.
- 15:53:01 [Norm]
- Norm: I'm willing to do that and see if it helps.
- 15:53:39 [Norm]
- Henry: The prose is still a bit terse.
- 15:54:03 [Norm]
- ...I think we should unpack it and make it more explicit.
- 15:54:05 [Norm]
- Norm: Ok.
- 15:54:20 [Norm]
- Point 13:
- 15:55:35 [Norm]
- Norm: We probably need to make the distinction between match and select more clear.
- 15:55:57 [Norm]
- Henry: Not that you need to make the point about match only matching element or document nodes here. There's no free ride.
- 15:57:09 [Norm]
- Norm: The WG's intent is clear but the prose needs to be clearer.
- 15:57:46 [Norm]
- Norm: Should we make it an error?
- 15:57:55 [Norm]
- s/error/error to select a document node/
- 15:57:58 [Norm]
- Henry: Yes.
- 15:58:03 [Norm]
- Accepted.
- 15:58:30 [MoZ]
- MoZ has joined #xproc
- 15:58:56 [Norm]
- Point 14:
- 15:59:02 [Norm]
- Norm: I think it can be a static error.
- 15:59:53 [Norm]
- Henry: Is this just a case where a processor could detect it statically if it wanted to?
- 16:00:33 [Norm]
- Norm: It could, but why not make it static?
- 16:00:57 [Norm]
- Henry: A select option to a step may be computed, so it has to be a dynamic error.
- 16:01:26 [Norm]
- Norm: But for select on our compound steps and for test on when, then they should be static errors.
- 16:02:00 [Norm]
- Norm: Any objections?
- 16:02:04 [Norm]
- Accepted.
- 16:02:09 [Norm]
- Topic: Any other business
- 16:02:16 [Norm]
- Adjourned.
- 16:02:30 [Zakim]
- -avernet
- 16:02:55 [Zakim]
- -PGrosso
- 16:03:09 [Zakim]
- -Andrew
- 16:04:55 [PGrosso]
- PGrosso has left #xproc
- 16:05:05 [Zakim]
- -Ht
- 16:05:09 [Zakim]
- -Norm
- 16:05:11 [Zakim]
- -MoZ
- 16:05:15 [Zakim]
- XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
- 16:05:17 [Zakim]
- Attendees were PGrosso, avernet, Ht, +95247aaaa, MoZ, Andrew, Norm
- 16:06:13 [Norm]
- RRSAgent, set logs world visible
- 16:06:13 [RRSAgent]
- I'm logging. I don't understand 'set logs world visible', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
- 16:06:18 [Norm]
- RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
- 16:06:44 [Norm]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:06:44 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-minutes.html Norm
- 16:07:21 [Norm]
- RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
- 16:51:18 [MSM]
- MSM has joined #xproc
- 17:27:43 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #xproc
- 17:28:41 [Norm]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 17:28:41 [RRSAgent]
- I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-actions.rdf :
- 17:28:41 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Henry will respond to the commenter on comment 24: passing PSVIs between steps. [1]
- 17:28:41 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-irc#T15-22-21
- 17:28:41 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Norm to see if the commenter agree's we've addressed his concerns. [2]
- 17:28:41 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-xproc-irc#T15-51-58