IRC log of xproc on 2007-11-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:59:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:59:43 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:59:48 [ht]
Zakim, this will be XProc
14:59:48 [Zakim]
ok, ht; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
14:59:59 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc
15:00:03 [ht]
Meeting: XProc telcon
15:00:12 [ht]
15:00:18 [ht]
Chair: Henry S. Thompson
15:00:24 [ht]
Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
15:00:31 [ht]
ScribeNick: ht
15:00:53 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:01:01 [Zakim]
15:01:38 [Zakim]
15:01:39 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:01:40 [Zakim]
Attendees were [IPcaller]
15:02:13 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:02:13 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:02:14 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:02:16 [Zakim]
15:03:22 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:03:32 [alexmilowski]
On in just a second ...
15:04:20 [Andrew]
Andrew has joined #xproc
15:04:33 [avernet]
And joining in 2 seconds here... (sorry)
15:04:37 [ht]
Andrew, we have regrets from Paul, right?
15:05:22 [ht]
Nevermind, I've confirmed
15:05:25 [Zakim]
15:05:30 [avernet]
zakim, ? is avernet
15:05:30 [Zakim]
+avernet; got it
15:05:43 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
15:05:57 [Zakim]
15:06:00 [Andrew]
zakim, ? is Andrew
15:06:00 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:06:09 [Zakim]
15:06:09 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
15:06:10 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:07:18 [ht]
come on Alex, we're waiting for you. . .
15:07:52 [ht]
Topic: Agenda
15:07:57 [ht]
15:08:21 [ht]
Accepted as distributed
15:08:31 [ht]
Topic: Minutes of last meeting
15:08:39 [ht]
15:08:58 [ht]
Accepted as distributed
15:09:20 [ht]
Topic: Next meetings
15:09:48 [Zakim]
15:10:38 [ht]
F2F in Cambridge MA next Thur and Friday: Norm, Henry, Paul, Alex
15:11:00 [ht]
HST: We will try to announce some summary of discussion and decision making times, for those who are dialing in
15:11:19 [MSM]
MSM has joined #xproc
15:11:26 [ht]
Next telcon: 15 November, usual timing
15:11:44 [ht]
No known regrets at this time. . .
15:11:57 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-Office
15:11:57 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
15:11:59 [Zakim]
15:12:03 [ht]
Topic: Review of Action Items
15:12:18 [MSM]
regrets from me for 15 November
15:12:35 [ht]
s/, Alex/, Alex, Michael (in part)/
15:13:16 [alexmilowski]
15:13:24 [alexmilowski]
Screaming child prevents me from unmuting...
15:13:44 [ht]
No changes to published list
15:14:03 [ht]
Topic: Comment 29: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted) output
15:14:56 [ht]
RT: At the end of the last meeting I was leaning towards requiring declarations for p:pipeline
15:15:07 [ht]
... They are short, don't require any bindings
15:15:51 [ht]
... I think we all rejected the extreme interpretation of the _status quo_ which would require arbitrary recursive analysis
15:16:28 [ht]
15:21:27 [ht]
HST: [summarizes the 'use syntax' option]
15:22:16 [ht]
HST: In the absence of email preparation, let's move on
15:22:29 [ht]
AV: Please do send an example, but yes, let's move on
15:22:52 [ht]
ACTION: HST to send an example of a 'new syntax' resolution to issue 29 to the list
15:23:20 [ht]
Topic: Comment 18: Scope of step types
15:23:40 [ht]
15:24:04 [ht]
RT: Don't we have approximate consensus on this, action A-87-03 refers
15:24:44 [ht]
Topic: Comment 13: Saxonica comments on sections 5-7
15:24:53 [ht]
15:27:25 [ht]
15:28:04 [ht]
HST: First, let's look at comment 3, section 5.7.3 option 2
15:29:25 [ht]
RT: I think MK has misunderstood it
15:30:03 [ht]
... The prefixes whose bindings are in question are those in the _result_ of a 'select' XPath, not in the 'select' XPath itself
15:30:35 [ht]
HST: The problem arises because there is no example to hand
15:31:19 [ht]
AM: I think we have to clarify with an example and with better text, what the purpose of 'default namespace bindings' actually _is_ at this point
15:32:10 [ht]
RT: There is an example further down
15:32:18 [ht]
HST: We need a simpler example earlier
15:33:12 [ht]
RT: Aha, we should be looking at the _first_ numbered list -- OK, yes, I see the problem
15:33:43 [ht]
HST: Enough here to guide the editor, let's leave it with him
15:35:24 [ht]
ACTION: NW to rewrite 5.7.3 by adding a simple 'select=' example alongside the 'match=' one at the beginning, and trying to clarify what the default namespace binding is for early on
15:36:02 [ht]
HST: Moving on to comment 4, a clarification
15:36:18 [ht]
15:36:57 [ht]
AM: p:load is a step, p:document is not
15:37:47 [ht]
... p:document leaves it implementation-defined whether we validate or not
15:37:57 [ht]
HST: No, it says you must not validate
15:38:56 [ht]
AM: I'm surprised that is there. . .
15:39:30 [ht]
RT: What does it mean to say 'must not validate' ? 'Must not fail for validity errors' I could understand
15:39:55 [ht]
HST: I think we're looking at the result of Norm trying to respond to MK's comment here. . .
15:41:30 [ht]
RT: I think this needs to change to clarify that p:document doesn't _fail_ because of a validity error
15:41:48 [ht]
... I think we should follow XSLT here and require that the external subset be read
15:41:59 [ht]
... so that all entities are expanded
15:42:25 [ht]
HST: Do we need to be more explicit about any other processor-dependent options?
15:43:01 [ht]
AM: I would be sorry to disallow the possibility of a secure environment in which all input of any kind to a pipeline had to be valid
15:43:11 [ht]
RT: I guess we need to discuss this at the f2f
15:43:33 [ht]
... I think AM's point should be an 'at user option' feature. . .
15:43:47 [ht]
HST: OK, done until the f2f
15:44:35 [ht]
... I think wrt MK's second point, NW's change in the 3 Oct. draft is sufficient
15:45:44 [ht]
HST: Moving on to comment 6
15:46:16 [ht]
HST: This is subsumed by issue
15:46:56 [ht]
... Issue 18 Comment 6 and Issue 70 should be responded to jointly
15:47:18 [ht]
RT: The idea is to do things much more cheaply than would be the case if XSLT or XQuery were used
15:48:12 [ht]
HST: Yes, determines whether you get an efficient implementation without waiting for an XSLT implementation which detects streamability
15:48:54 [ht]
RT: I've suggested in the past that we use XSLT stylesheets to provide exemplary implementations of the steps like these
15:49:02 [ht]
... removing any ambiguity as to how they work
15:49:12 [ht]
HST: Interesting idea -- volunteers?
15:49:15 [alexmilowski]
Richard suggested it...
15:49:16 [alexmilowski]
15:49:52 [ht]
RT: There may be problems in the details
15:50:27 [ht]
HST: We'll leave that for now, as a start on subsequent discussion or issue 70
15:51:29 [ht]
s/Issue 18 Comment 6/Issue 13 Comment 6/
15:51:46 [ht]
RT: Let's not get bogged down in details of individual steps
15:52:04 [ht]
HST: Moving on to comment 9
15:52:18 [ht]
RT: What is meant by 'namespace aware DTD validation'?
15:52:27 [ht]
... assume it means namespace-aware parsing
15:54:34 [ht]
HST: I think this means, by contrast with the reference to Namespace Well-formed for p:document, this means that if validate='true', then we require Namespace Validity
15:54:46 [ht]
RT: Right, e.g. IDs must be NCNames
15:55:30 [ht]
ACTION: NW to clarify by adding reference to Namespace Validity to the description of p:load with validate='true'
15:57:12 [Zakim]
15:57:14 [Zakim]
15:57:16 [Zakim]
15:57:18 [Zakim]
15:57:19 [Zakim]
15:57:26 [Zakim]
15:57:28 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:57:29 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ht, avernet, Andrew, richard, Alex_Milowski, MSM
15:57:43 [ht]
zakim, bye
15:57:43 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
15:57:51 [ht]
rrsagent, make logs world-visible
15:57:59 [ht]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:57:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ht