15:27:41 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 15:27:41 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-xproc-irc 15:27:44 Zakim has joined #xproc 15:27:47 Zakim, this will be xproc 15:27:47 ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 33 minutes 15:28:10 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 15:28:10 Date: 31 January 2008 15:28:10 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/01/31-agenda 15:28:10 Meeting: 100 15:28:10 Chair: Norm 15:28:11 Scribe: Norm 15:28:13 ScribeNick: Norm 15:29:12 MoZ has joined #xproc 15:56:20 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 15:58:03 PGrosso has joined #xproc 15:59:22 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 15:59:29 +alexmilowski 15:59:37 ruilopes has joined #xproc 15:59:49 Got here first. I get a sticker. 16:00:03 (on the call that is) 16:00:22 +[ArborText] 16:00:29 avernet has joined #xproc 16:00:29 +??P4 16:00:34 Zakim, ? is me 16:00:34 +ruilopes; got it 16:01:41 +[IPcaller] 16:01:43 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:01:43 On the phone I see alexmilowski, PGrosso, ruilopes, [IPcaller] 16:01:45 +Norm 16:01:48 zakim, [ is avernet 16:01:48 +avernet; got it 16:02:38 zakim, please call ht-781 16:02:38 ok, ht; the call is being made 16:02:40 +Ht 16:03:42 richard has joined #xproc 16:04:04 +??P16 16:04:08 zakim, ? is me 16:04:08 +richard; got it 16:04:51 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:04:51 On the phone I see alexmilowski, PGrosso, ruilopes, avernet, Norm, Ht, richard 16:05:14 Present: Alex, Paul, Rui, Alessandro, Norm, Henry, Richard 16:05:27 Topic: Accept this agenda? 16:05:27 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/01/31-agenda 16:05:31 Accepted. 16:05:40 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 16:05:40 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/01/24-minutes 16:05:44 Accepted. 16:05:51 Topic: Next meeting: telcon 7 February 2008? 16:06:01 No regrets given 16:06:11 Topic: Last Call Comments 16:06:18 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments.html 16:06:36 Comment 100: cherry picked items 16:07:25 Alex: It'd be nice, but there's no standard serialization spec for it 16:07:28 s/spec/control/ 16:07:36 Henry: Why? 16:07:40 Alex: XQuery doesn't have it. 16:08:07 Zakim, what is the code ? 16:08:07 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ 16:08:15 Norm: I don't have any recollection of a technical reason why it wasn't part of serialization. 16:08:44 Present: +Mohamed 16:08:46 +MoZ 16:10:06 NOTE TO SCRIBE add what issue this is before the discussion 16:10:16 Alex: I don't see anything in the serialization spec about excluding prefixes. 16:11:17 Norm: Clearly it can be done, do we want to do this in XProc 1.0? 16:11:26 Alex: It's critical if you want to send the output to IE? 16:11:30 s/IE?/IE./ 16:11:41 Alex: But implementors could do this outside of the spec. 16:12:31 Norm: We could let implementors do this as an extension. 16:13:22 Alex: It doesn't even have to be an extension in the pipeline; it could be in how you run the processor. 16:13:35 Henry: Gee, this is on the margins. 16:13:53 ...Fussing with namespaces and serialization is something on which one can waste arbitrary amounts of time. 16:14:05 Alex: Implementors have lots of ways, it's a question of whether we make it a requirement. 16:14:18 Henry: With my implementors hat on, I'd sort of rather not... 16:15:08 Alex: Wouldn't an XSLT step at the end of the pipeline do it? 16:15:10 Norm: I'm not sure. 16:15:31 -ruilopes 16:15:39 Richard: I'm not sure I understand the issue. 16:16:11 +??P4 16:16:17 Zakim, ? is me 16:16:17 +ruilopes; got it 16:16:59 Richard: In XSLT, exclude-result-prefixes is only about literal result elements in the stylesheet. 16:17:22 Norm: Ok, so is there anything comparable? 16:17:40 Ricahrd: If the pipeline itself binds some prefixes, then they're in scope for literal elements in it. 16:18:02 Henry: Like an inline document. 16:18:45 Some discussion of what the namespace bindings are for an inline document 16:19:31 Alex: You could do this with a new step. 16:20:41 Norm: I don't think we want to add this to serialization and I don't thnk we need to do it for any other reason. 16:21:00 Henry: Someone is free to create a simplify-namespace step and we can adopt it for V.next if it's widely supported. 16:21:20 Proposed: No, we aren't going to add anything for exclude-prefixes 16:21:22 Accepted. 16:21:37 Next up, should the 'path' attribute on p:directory-list be renamed? 16:22:44 AndrewF has joined #xproc 16:23:33 Richard: If I were renaming this, I'd probably call it something like 'directory-name' 16:23:42 +??P22 16:23:47 zakim, ? is Andrew 16:23:47 +Andrew; got it 16:24:10 uri-prefix 16:24:14 Norm: Nikolay followed-up proposing just "uri" on the basis that it might support ftp:, jar:, file:, etc. 16:24:21 ...On that basis, I think I'd rather not change it. 16:25:22 what about location ? 16:25:48 Norm: Most implementations are only going to support file: URIs on the local host, so "path" makes some sense. 16:25:56 Alex: Location? 16:26:09 Richard: None of these is obviously better than "path". 16:26:14 Proposal: No change. 16:26:23 Accepted. 16:26:43 Adding a scheme to p:label-elements that generates an ID from an XPath 16:27:45 Alex: That would require another option 16:29:20 Some discussion 16:29:35 Richard: I've found that you often want to combine all sorts of possibilities. 16:29:59 ...for example, an XPath that gives you the count. I did it with a C-like format-string. It gets passed the prefix, suffix, and label. 16:32:03 Some discussion of the possibilities 16:32:12 -ruilopes 16:32:33 Richard: If prefix/suffix can be XPaths then in the XPath case you can just say that the label is '' so that you just get the concatenation of prefix and suffix. 16:34:43 Henry: We can always use an XPath and just require implementors to short-cut the simple case. 16:34:59 Alex: I think I'm with Henry, we take three options and we make them into one. 16:35:07 +??P0 16:35:12 Zakim, ? is me 16:35:12 +ruilopes; got it 16:35:19 pp:count-elements() 16:36:09 It's nice that Alex likes my proposal, I like his 16:36:11 Norm boggles at a step-local function. 16:36:17 Use a variable 16:36:28 Richard: I think it's entirely reasonable for steps to have local functions. 16:37:32 Henry: I like adding a variable. I like saying impl's must bind $p:index to a value for the evaluation of this expression. 16:38:06 Norm boggles harder 16:38:28 Richard: To say this adds something is no more true than saying that XSLT adds a bunch of stuff. 16:38:49 ...From the pipeline perspective, it's just a string. The label-elements step is the one doing the evaulation. 16:39:17 Norm: I think we've drifted far enough that we need a proposal. 16:39:23 ACTION: Alex to draft a proposal for this change. 16:39:54 Comment 102: Default bindings for non-primary inputs 16:40:27 HST believes the proposal is to replace 'prefix', 'suffix' and 'scheme' with 'label', with default value concat('_',$p:index) 16:40:28 -ruilopes 16:40:44 Norm tries to describe the proposal 16:41:03 +[IPcaller] 16:41:09 Zakim, [ is me 16:41:09 +ruilopes; got it 16:41:42 Alex: That is weird. That's not what you want in most cases. 16:42:24 Proposal: Remove default bindings for non-primary inputs 16:42:31 Accepted. 16:42:56 Comments 107: Options in XSLT match patterns 16:45:39 Henry: If 2.8.1 doesn't apply, then don't we need to say something similar 16:46:09 The question of whether prefix is in-scope or not is open 16:47:29 Or maybe it isn't 16:48:17 Mohamed: Can we say that XSLT match pattern in XProc doesn't allow variable references, even if it's in XSLT2. 16:48:31 ...We leave it for V.next to say how we do this. 16:48:46 -ruilopes 16:49:27 +??P0 16:49:34 Zakim, ? is me 16:49:34 +ruilopes; got it 16:50:46 Henry: Section 2.8.2 says explicitly that there aren't any variables in steps. 16:50:54 Henry: We can close this issue by saying, 'use select'. 16:53:40 Richard: I'm now a bit confused by this description of the XPath context 16:55:12 5.7.1.3 introduces 'select' and 'value' and explains that in-scope options are available for access by variable references 16:55:17 Richard: What 2.8.2 should say is "except when otherwise specified by the step documentation" 16:56:34 s/references/references in 'select' expressions/ 16:57:32 5.7.1.3 should point out that per 2.8.2 if a option 'value' is used as an XPath, those bindings will _not_ be available 16:57:39 Richard: In fact, almost all these things do say "unless otherwise specified by the step" 16:58:18 Norm: Editorial carelessness 16:59:00 Richard: In fact, the XPath 2 case says that, we just need to fix the XPath 1 case. 17:00:11 Henry: We should be clear in 5.7.1.3 about the value case and point to 2.8.2 from there. 17:02:21 Topic: Any other business 17:02:37 None. 17:02:40 Adjourned. 17:02:43 -Ht 17:02:44 -PGrosso 17:02:45 -ruilopes 17:02:46 -Norm 17:02:47 -alexmilowski 17:02:49 -MoZ 17:02:51 -Andrew 17:02:52 RRSAgent, set logs world-visible 17:02:53 -avernet 17:02:54 -richard 17:02:55 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 17:02:56 Attendees were alexmilowski, PGrosso, ruilopes, [IPcaller], Norm, avernet, Ht, richard, MoZ, Andrew 17:02:56 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:02:56 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-xproc-minutes.html Norm 17:03:00 PGrosso has left #xproc 18:57:26 Zakim has left #xproc