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 http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-xproc-irc
- 16:01:36 [ht]
- zakim, please call ht-781
- 16:01:37 [Zakim]
- ok, ht; the call is being made
- 16:01:37 [Zakim]
- +Norm
- 16:01:39 [Zakim]
- +Ht
- 16:02:03 [Norm]
- Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
- 16:02:03 [Norm]
- Date: 7 February 2008
- 16:02:03 [Norm]
- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/07/07-agenda
- 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]
- +??P0
- 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]
- +alexmilowski
- 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]
- +??P9
- 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]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/02/07-agenda
- 16:05:40 [Norm]
- Accepted.
- 16:05:46 [Norm]
- Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
- 16:05:46 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/01/31-minutes
- 16:05:57 [Norm]
- Accepted.
- 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]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments.html
- 16:06:30 [Norm]
- Topic: Last call comments
- 16:06:30 [Norm]
- -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments.html
- 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]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#lre-namespaces
- 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]
- -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2008Feb/0017.html
- 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]
- Accepted.
- 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]
- Accepted.
- 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]
- Accepted.
- 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]
- ..in the case of charset, the parameter has already been used to decode the content.
- 16:48:54 [Zakim]
- +Murray_Maloney
- 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]
- Accepted.
- 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]
- Accepted.
- 17:01:15 [Norm]
- Topic: Any other business?
- 17:01:22 [Norm]
- None.
- 17:01:28 [Zakim]
- -Ht
- 17:01:30 [Norm]
- Adjourned.
- 17:01:32 [Zakim]
- -alexmilowski
- 17:01:33 [Zakim]
- -Murray_Maloney
- 17:01:33 [Zakim]
- -Andrew
- 17:01:34 [Zakim]
- -PGrosso
- 17:01:35 [Zakim]
- -Norm
- 17:01:36 [Zakim]
- -richard
- 17:01:37 [Zakim]
- -ruilopes
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-xproc-minutes.html Norm
- 17:03:01 [PGrosso]
- PGrosso has left #xproc
- 18:23:37 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #xproc