IRC log of xproc on 2008-02-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:01:28 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
16:01:28 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:01:36 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
16:01:37 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
16:01:37 [Zakim]
16:01:39 [Zakim]
16:02:03 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
16:02:03 [Norm]
Date: 7 February 2008
16:02:03 [Norm]
16:02:03 [Norm]
Meeting: 101
16:02:03 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
16:02:04 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
16:02:06 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
16:02:18 [Zakim]
16:02:22 [ruilopes]
Zakim, ? is me
16:02:22 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
16:02:42 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
16:02:58 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
16:03:13 [Zakim]
+ +44.131.467.aaaa
16:03:23 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
16:03:30 [Norm]
Regrets: Alessandro, Mohamed
16:03:33 [richard]
hmm, i suppose that's me, but it's not the right number
16:03:36 [richard]
zakim, ? is mo
16:03:36 [Zakim]
sorry, richard, I do not recognize a party named '?'
16:03:41 [richard]
zakim, + is me
16:03:41 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
16:03:45 [Zakim]
16:03:58 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:03:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PGrosso, Norm, Ht, ruilopes, richard, alexmilowski
16:04:09 [Norm]
Present: Paul, Norm, Henry, Rui, Richard, Alex
16:04:16 [Zakim]
16:04:20 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is Andrew
16:04:21 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
16:04:27 [Norm]
Present: Paul, Norm, Henry, Rui, Richard, Alex, Andrew
16:05:35 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:05:35 [Norm]
16:05:40 [Norm]
16:05:46 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
16:05:46 [Norm]
16:05:57 [Norm]
16:06:06 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 14 February 2008?
16:06:16 [Norm]
No regrets given
16:06:29 [Norm]
Topic: Last call comments
16:06:30 [Norm]
16:06:30 [Norm]
Topic: Last call comments
16:06:30 [Norm]
16:06:45 [Norm]
Topic: Excluding prefixes on p:inline
16:07:03 [Norm]
Norm attempts to summarize.
16:07:44 [Norm]
Norm: Do we want to make it possible to exclude prefixes?
16:09:40 [Norm]
Henry: What's wrong with telling processors they should construct documents as if serializing the document, removing all inherited namespace bindings from the root, and reparsing?
16:09:55 [Norm]
...That is, remove everything that's inherited.
16:10:20 [Norm]
...In the 0.1 percent case, you'd have to bind a namespace several times because you were using it in several inlines.
16:10:35 [Norm]
Norm: That seems way more confusing than just adding the attribute.
16:11:25 [Norm]
Alex: Considering we have to produce a document from p:inline, you have to do a little bit of work. So having to do a little more work doesn't seem that bad.
16:11:59 [Norm]
Henry: If you've got an infoset, you're going to have to walk through and fix all the nodes.
16:12:10 [Norm]
Alex: I don't think so.
16:12:36 [Norm]
Henry: In order to prevent serialization from doing the wrong thing further down the line, you're going to have to look at all the namespace information bindings.
16:13:13 [Norm]
Some discussion of how complicated this really is.
16:14:25 [ht]
16:14:54 [Norm]
Henry: What that says is you've got to walk the tree and prune the nodes.
16:14:59 [Norm]
s/nodes/namespace nodes/
16:16:19 [Norm]
Richard: XSLT's mechanism is slightly more complicated than the excluded prefixes; the xsl: prefix is excluded and then there's an alias that lets you put it back in.
16:16:28 [Norm]
Norm: Bah.
16:17:23 [Norm]
Alex: I wonder if there's a simple thing that we have a problem with: the document element is going to inherit all the in-scope namespaces. The simple question is, do we break that relationship?
16:17:57 [Norm]
Henry: The argument that says inline is very-very parallel to literal result elements in XSLT suggests we should make it very parallel.
16:18:08 [alexmilowski]
+1 to that.
16:18:21 [Norm]
...We exclude the pipeline namespace, we provide exclude-result-prefixes, and we add the aliasing.
16:18:48 [Norm]
...If we think it's parallel to XSLT LREs, we should change things to make it parallel.
16:18:53 [ht]
HST didn't say 'add the aliasing', but might be persuaded. . .
16:20:06 [Norm]
Henry: Because we can stand in a better place, I'm going to try to do it the following way:
16:20:24 [Norm]
...what the ... nevermind
16:21:00 [Norm]
...what I was going to say was that we exclude them from this element where they're inherited. But that's too hard and complicated.
16:21:12 [Norm]
ACTION: Henry to draft a spec change for providing exclude-result-prefixes on p:inline.
16:21:50 [Norm]
Richard: We don't need a dual to the xsl:exclude-result-prefixes attribute, and you only put them on a p:inline element, not on some higher element.
16:22:03 [Norm]
Henry: I guess you should be able to put it on the p:pipeline or p:declare-step?
16:22:13 [Norm]
Richard: No. Remember that the 90% case is you don't do this at all.
16:23:20 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
16:23:32 [Norm]
Henry: Proposition #1, there's a dont-exclude-pipeline-namespaces attribute which is false by default. Or there's an exclude-pipeline-namespaces attribute which is true by default.
16:23:40 [Norm]
Richard: Is it used for anything else in XSLT?
16:23:49 [Norm]
Henry asserts its not
16:24:11 [Norm]
Richard reads something from the XSLT spec about security and namespace aliasing.
16:27:12 [Norm]
Scribe distracted for a moment
16:27:32 [Norm]
Richard proposes using another step if you really need to have the pipeline namespace.
16:28:52 [Norm]
Topic: p:label-elements proposal from Alex
16:29:02 [Norm]
16:30:19 [Norm]
Alex summarizes the proposal, including an addition to control replacement
16:31:58 [Norm]
Henry: Remind me, did we reach closure on a variable versus a function?
16:32:08 [Norm]
Alex: I think those of us who wanted this change wanted the variable.
16:32:50 [Norm]
Alex: My rationale is that some APIs make it easier to set a variable than a function.
16:33:41 [Norm]
Henry: As we've repeatedly commented, implementations don't have to use XPath at all in the defaulted case.
16:34:02 [Norm]
...It's easy to optimize this if you want to.
16:34:23 [Norm]
Alex: One tweak is to say that the label attribute is optional
16:37:13 [Norm]
Some discussion of function vs. variable.
16:37:58 [Norm]
Alex: Inside a step, it seems like you need an API that you might not otherwise need inside the step. Things like viewport can be very different. The API for steps might be simpler, cleaner.
16:38:44 [Norm]
Alex: Writing things in steps seems different than writing things in the core language.
16:39:25 [Norm]
Shall we adopt Alex's proposal?
16:39:36 [Norm]
16:40:03 [Norm]
Alex: With a replace option?
16:40:08 [Norm]
Norm: I think so, any objections?
16:40:10 [Norm]
None heard.
16:40:30 [Norm]
Topic: #108. Serialization parameters as parameter input ports
16:41:29 [Norm]
Norm: I think this is a desire to compute serializatin parameters and pass them in dynamically. Maybe useful, but not a V1 feature in my mind.
16:43:02 [Norm]
Henry: Besides, there's a workaround.
16:43:19 [Norm]
...You can write the document and the compute the options from that document.
16:43:46 [Norm]
Proposal: No change to support this use case in V1.
16:43:54 [Norm]
16:44:20 [Norm]
ACTION: Alex to reply to the submitter.
16:44:38 [Norm]
Topic: 110. Add dates to schema docs
16:45:04 [Norm]
Norm: I don't know why I put this on the agenda, it's editorial. Let's just do it.
16:45:12 [Norm]
16:45:32 [Norm]
Topic: #109. Response headers is in p:http-request
16:46:05 [Norm]
Alex: I think we should drop the ommission of content-* headers.
16:46:55 [Norm]
...I don't think I want to go into parsing the headers because the header parsing is dependent on the header, they don't all take parameters.
16:48:22 [Norm]
Alex: I think its overkill even if it is generally true. And I don't think you'd gain anything.
16:48:43 [Norm] the case of charset, the parameter has already been used to decode the content.
16:48:54 [Zakim]
16:50:11 [Norm]
ACTION: Alex to consider any clarifications that might need to be made to p:http-request.
16:50:42 [Norm]
At the very least, go ahead and remove the restriction on content-* headers.
16:51:04 [Norm]
Topic #111. Additions to implementation defined section
16:51:56 [Norm]
Norm: I suggest that we whatever XPath 2.0 does wrt Unicode versions.
16:52:05 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to add the Unicode version text to the spec
16:52:18 [Norm]
Topic: 112. Propose a warning mechanism.
16:52:50 [Norm]
Norm: I don't think we need to say anything about warnings, but I'm prepared to be persuaded.
16:53:31 [Norm]
Alex: Programs can generate warnings if they want.
16:53:57 [Norm]
Proposed: We'll say nothing in the spec about this.
16:53:59 [Norm]
16:54:22 [Norm]
Topic: #113. Nitpicking p:insert and p:add-attribute
16:55:04 [Norm]
Norm is inclined to agree with the commenter
16:56:45 [Norm]
Richard: What does add-attribute do if the attribute is already present
16:56:49 [Norm]
Norm: We don't say. That we need to fix.
16:57:07 [Norm]
Norm: Let's take these one at a time.
16:57:54 [Norm]
Norm: Are we going to rename add-attribute to insert-attribute?
16:58:00 [Norm]
Alex: I'm not sure insert is the right word
16:58:13 [Norm]
Norm: I don't hear any support.
16:59:14 [Norm]
Norm: So I'm inclined to leave insert the way it is; we might relax the restrictions in the future.
16:59:40 [Norm]
Richard: And if the document has a PI, then that gets inserted, so we can't rename it insert-element.
16:59:48 [Norm]
Alex: And we can have before and after, so it isn't a child.
17:00:07 [Norm]
Proposal: do nothing.
17:00:31 [Norm]
ACTION: Alex to fix add-attribute wrt existing attributes
17:00:41 [Norm]
ACTION: Alex to fix insert so that it doesn't always imply child.
17:01:08 [Norm]
17:01:15 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
17:01:22 [Norm]
17:01:28 [Zakim]
17:01:30 [Norm]
17:01:32 [Zakim]
17:01:33 [Zakim]
17:01:33 [Zakim]
17:01:34 [Zakim]
17:01:35 [Zakim]
17:01:36 [Zakim]
17:01:37 [Zakim]
17:01:38 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
17:01:40 [Zakim]
Attendees were PGrosso, Norm, Ht, ruilopes, +44.131.467.aaaa, richard, alexmilowski, Andrew, Murray_Maloney
17:01:43 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
17:01:47 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:01:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
17:03:01 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
18:23:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc