IRC log of xproc on 2007-11-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:49:44 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:49:44 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-xproc-irc
15:54:59 [ruilopes]
ruilopes has joined #xproc
15:55:53 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:55:53 [Norm]
Date: 15 November 2007
15:55:53 [Norm]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/11/15-agenda
15:55:53 [Norm]
Meeting: 92
15:55:53 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:55:54 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:55:56 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:57:09 [Norm]
Regrets: Paul, Mohamed
15:58:15 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc
16:00:09 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
16:00:16 [Zakim]
+Norm
16:02:16 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:02:16 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:02:17 [Zakim]
-Norm
16:02:19 [Zakim]
+Norm
16:02:20 [Zakim]
+??P26
16:02:32 [avernet]
zakim, ? is avernet
16:02:32 [Zakim]
+avernet; got it
16:02:39 [Zakim]
+??P21
16:02:55 [Norm]
Zakim, ??P21 is richard
16:02:55 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
16:03:00 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
16:03:02 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:03:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, avernet (muted), richard
16:03:11 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:03:12 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:03:12 [Zakim]
+Ht
16:03:24 [Norm]
Zakim, unmute avernet
16:03:24 [Zakim]
avernet should no longer be muted
16:03:29 [Zakim]
+??P28
16:03:35 [ruilopes]
Zakim, ? is me
16:03:35 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
16:03:44 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:03:44 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, avernet, richard, Ht, ruilopes
16:04:20 [Norm]
Zakim, who's talking?
16:04:32 [Zakim]
Norm, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: richard (4%), avernet (56%)
16:05:12 [Zakim]
-avernet
16:06:01 [Zakim]
+??P20
16:06:05 [avernet]
zakim, ? is avernet
16:06:05 [Zakim]
+avernet; got it
16:06:12 [Andrew]
Andrew has joined #xproc
16:06:23 [Zakim]
+Murray_Maloney
16:06:41 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Alessandro, Richard, Henry, Rui, Andrew, Murray
16:06:45 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:06:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, richard, Ht, ruilopes, avernet, Murray_Maloney
16:07:06 [Zakim]
+??P0
16:07:07 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
16:07:11 [Andrew]
zakim, ? is Andrew
16:07:11 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
16:07:17 [alexmilowski]
I'll be on in just a second...
16:07:18 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Alessandro, Richard, Henry, Rui, Andrew, Murray, Alex
16:07:28 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:07:28 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/11/15-agenda
16:07:31 [Norm]
Accepted
16:07:37 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
16:07:37 [Norm]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Nov/0031.html
16:07:47 [Norm]
Accepted
16:07:56 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 29 November 2007
16:08:22 [Norm]
Alessandro gives regrets for 29 Nov
16:08:32 [Norm]
(Note that we are not meeting on 22 Nov!)
16:08:48 [Norm]
Topic: XPath versions
16:08:48 [Norm]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Nov/0038.html
16:09:13 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.404.aaaa
16:09:38 [Norm]
Zakim, aaaa is alexmilowski
16:09:38 [Zakim]
+alexmilowski; got it
16:10:12 [Norm]
Norm summarizes the state of play
16:10:43 [Norm]
Henry: The traditional schema group compromise seems appropriate: call attention to it in the next draft of the spec and ask for implementor feedback.
16:11:48 [Norm]
s/implementor/implementor and user/
16:11:56 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
16:12:11 [Norm]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Nov/0053.html
16:12:46 [Norm]
Alex: So we're going to allow for different answers in the two versions.
16:12:55 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, for now, with Henry's suggestion for priority feedback
16:14:08 [Norm]
Henry: The 99.99% case is when you're comparing strings in XPath 1, one of the strings will coerce to a number. In that case, you will get the same answer.
16:14:23 [Norm]
Murray: Why can't we settle on XPath 2.0
16:14:49 [Norm]
Henry/Richard: Because right now there are too many implementation communities where 1.0 is only available.
16:15:22 [Norm]
Murray: I think it'd be better to leave them behind than to possibly give different results.
16:15:46 [Norm]
Henry: The proposal as it stands includes the idea that we give authors guidance for interoperability.
16:16:13 [Norm]
...It's extremely unlikely that the kinds of xpaths that don't interoperate will really turn up in practice.
16:16:28 [Norm]
...I'd rather include the XPath 1.0 people in at the expense of that very small problem than exclude them to get rid of it.
16:17:20 [Norm]
Alex: Interoperability is more than just getting the same answer; there are also cases where the XPaths simply won't work on some implementations.
16:18:35 [Norm]
Norm: I think saying XPath 2.0 only would be a tactical error.
16:18:42 [Norm]
Murray: So can we say 1.0 only?
16:18:54 [Norm]
Norm: There are implementors that only plan to support 2.0.
16:19:17 [Norm]
Alex: I'm not sure that guiding authors to use some squishy middle ground is the right answer.
16:19:35 [Norm]
...I think it'd be better to explain the interoperability probems.
16:19:38 [Norm]
s/probems/problems/
16:20:41 [Norm]
Some discussion of the right interoperability story.
16:22:04 [Norm]
Henry: I'd like to see the editor try to write up the point that we arrived at.
16:22:42 [Norm]
Norm: Uh, I did that.
16:22:53 [Norm]
Alex: Do we want to allow the xpath-version attribute on any element?
16:24:02 [Norm]
Norm: I was thinking of cut-and-paste
16:24:18 [Norm]
...But I'm perfectly happy to try putting it only on p:pipeline-library and p:pipeline
16:26:43 [Norm]
Richard: Should we just make it a static error to attempt to use XPath 2.0 with an XPath 1.0-only processor?
16:27:13 [Norm]
Henry: I'm happy with the silent attempt because it is amenable to conditional pipelines.
16:28:53 [Norm]
Murray: Back in the days when we were first talking about SGML on the web, one of the expressions that came up was "perverse obscurity".
16:29:05 [Norm]
...This discussion of 1.0/2.0 corners is perverse obscurity.
16:30:05 [Norm]
Murray: We're setting up a situation where it is possible for pipelines to generate the wrong answer.
16:30:13 [Norm]
Henry: I think you're exhagerating the situation.
16:31:06 [Norm]
Norm: I think the number of cases where you're going to give the wrong answer is quite small.
16:31:55 [Norm]
Richard: Presumably users of XSLT 2.0 processors with XSLT 1.0 stylesheets are experiencing the same problems.
16:31:57 [Norm]
Norm: yes.
16:32:11 [Norm]
Henry: I've been doing this for years and I've never had a problem.
16:34:50 [Norm]
Norm: We could make XPath 1.0 compatibility mode a MUST for implementors
16:35:31 [Norm]
Richard: And we could say that XPath 1.0 implemntors MUST only run expressions that will give teh same result
16:36:56 [Norm]
Norm: Bah, I don't think I want to go there.
16:37:14 [Norm]
Henry: I sort of like this road; nobody loses, it's just that some people win more than others.
16:38:07 [Norm]
Henry: I think the spec should say that if someone asks for XPath 2.0 evaluation, your XPath 1.0 implementation MUST only evaluate those XPaths which they know have the same value.
16:38:23 [Norm]
Richard: And if yours doesn't know any, it must reject them all.
16:39:53 [Norm]
Norm: So we're going basically the route I outlined, but saying that 2.0 processor must implement 1.0 mode and a 1.0 processor must not evaluate any expression that it cannot determine will give the same result in XPath 2.0.
16:40:06 [Norm]
Richard: Can we find out what the subset is?
16:40:13 [Norm]
Alex: Maybe. There's an appendix in XPath 2.0 spec.
16:40:28 [Norm]
Proposed: Go forward as above for the next draft.
16:40:32 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:40:46 [Norm]
Topic: XSLT versions
16:40:46 [Norm]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Nov/0016.html
16:42:21 [Norm]
Norm outlines his plan
16:42:23 [Norm]
Alex: I'm all for it.
16:42:45 [Norm]
Proposed: go this way for the next draft.
16:42:47 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:42:51 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
16:42:51 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
16:43:02 [Norm]
Topic: New public working draft
16:43:31 [Zakim]
+MoZ
16:43:32 [Norm]
Norm: I think we need a new draft asap.
16:43:45 [Norm]
Richard: We also need the stuff about what types are in scope.
16:44:19 [Norm]
Norm: I'm happy to do the next draft with a fair number of "TBD" sectins.
16:44:24 [Norm]
s/sectins/sections/
16:46:58 [Norm]
Proposed: editor will make a new public draft with the XPath/XSLT decisions and as many other decisions as possible to be published as soon as practical.
16:47:53 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:48:22 [Norm]
Topic: Other last call comments (implicit inputs/outputs; default bindings)
16:48:30 [Norm]
Topic: New step types (p:hash, p:uuid, p:www-form-url(en|de)code
16:48:57 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone object to putting those in the next draft?
16:49:10 [Norm]
Mohamed, do we have strong use cases for them
16:49:34 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, and they're optional anyway
16:49:52 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:50:03 [Norm]
Topic: Other last call comments (implicit inputs/outputs; default bindings)
16:50:51 [Norm]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Nov/0032.html
16:50:54 [Norm]
Norm summarizes
16:52:19 [Norm]
s/summarizes/summarizes the state of default bindings
16:53:33 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:55:23 [Norm]
Norm attempts to summarize the default input/output case.
16:57:07 [Norm]
See 2.3 in the 13 Nov editor's draft.
16:57:24 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:57:51 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to change all the examples
16:58:15 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business
16:59:17 [Norm]
Henry: It occurs to me that wrt the visible step types, it's not completely clear whether we have schema rules or xslt rules. If I import something that imports something else, do I get to use what's in the third thing or not.
16:59:32 [Norm]
...Richard and my prose supposes that the answer is yes. The current draft suggests that it's no.
16:59:56 [Norm]
...And the message about circular imports clearly suggests that it's no.
17:00:09 [Norm]
Richard: I believe that Henry's message is right, modulo that fix.
17:00:28 [Norm]
Henry: I'd like to particularly encourage Alex to review it.
17:00:34 [Norm]
Alex: Right. Will do.
17:01:01 [Norm]
Adjourned
17:01:03 [Zakim]
-alexmilowski
17:01:04 [Zakim]
-ruilopes
17:01:05 [Zakim]
-Norm
17:01:06 [Zakim]
-avernet
17:01:07 [Zakim]
-Ht
17:01:09 [Zakim]
-Andrew
17:01:10 [Zakim]
-richard
17:01:12 [Zakim]
-MoZ
17:01:14 [Zakim]
-Murray_Maloney
17:01:15 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
17:01:16 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, avernet, richard, Ht, ruilopes, Murray_Maloney, Andrew, +1.415.404.aaaa, alexmilowski, MoZ
17:01:20 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
17:01:23 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:01:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-xproc-minutes.html Norm
18:25:40 [Norm]
Zakim, bye
18:25:40 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
18:25:41 [Norm]
RRSAgent, bye
18:25:41 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-xproc-actions.rdf :
18:25:41 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to change all the examples [1]
18:25:41 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-xproc-irc#T16-57-51