IRC log of xproc on 2008-01-31

Timestamps are in UTC.

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