IRC log of xproc on 2008-04-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:00:44 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:00:44 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:00:56 [Norm]
Zakim, this will be xproc
15:00:56 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
15:01:48 [PGrosso]
Zakim, this is xproc
15:01:52 [Zakim]
ok, PGrosso; that matches XML_PMWG()11:00AM
15:02:11 [Zakim]
15:02:16 [Zakim]
15:02:41 [richard]
zakim, ? is richard
15:02:42 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:04:02 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:04:12 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:04:12 [Norm]
Date: 3 Apr 2008
15:04:12 [Norm]
15:04:12 [Norm]
Meeting: 106
15:04:12 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:04:13 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:04:15 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:04:35 [PGrosso]
15:04:35 [Zakim]
15:04:41 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is Andrew
15:04:41 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:05:49 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone
15:05:49 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's on the phone', Norm
15:05:53 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:05:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see alexmilowski, PGrosso, richard, Norm, Jeroen, Andrew
15:06:46 [Norm]
Present: Alex, Paul, Richard, Norm, Toman, Andrew
15:07:02 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:07:02 [Norm]
15:07:08 [Norm]
15:07:15 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:07:15 [Norm]
15:07:18 [Norm]
15:08:22 [Norm]
Present: Alex, Paul, Richard, Norm, Vojtech, Andrew
15:09:23 [Norm]
Topic: Welcome Vojtech Toman
15:09:27 [Norm]
Introductions all around.
15:12:06 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 10 April 2008?
15:12:45 [Norm]
No regrets given.
15:12:58 [Norm]
Topic: Consideration of the current editor's draft.
15:13:50 [Norm]
Norm updated the draft to include Henry's comments, the tumblers, and a first pitiful stab at an appendix on parallel processing.
15:14:49 [Norm]
Alex observes that the parallel processing section is currently section 8, probably should be an appendix.
15:15:12 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, you're probably right, I'll move it.
15:15:46 [Norm]
Alex: Normative?
15:15:55 [Norm]
Norm: No, I don't think so, it's just for explanation.
15:16:17 [Norm]
Topic: Comment #83, system identifiers and base URIs
15:17:55 [Norm]
Vojtech: The issue I had was a simple pipeline that transformas an XML document. What wasn't clear was what the resulting documents base URIs were.
15:18:14 [Norm]
Vojtech: Can I manipulate the base URI and assign it?
15:18:30 [Norm]
...If I process document.xml, I want to get, for example.
15:18:57 [Norm]
..Later I thought if I have a pipeline that validates a document, does the result have the same base URI.
15:19:26 [alexmilowski]
XSLT 2.0 says: "The base URI of the new element is copied from the base URI of the literal result element in the stylesheet, unless the content of the new element includes an xml:base attribute, in which case the base URI of the new element is the value of that attribute, resolved (if it is a relative URI) against the base URI of the literal result element in the stylesheet."
15:19:30 [alexmilowski]
In section 11.1
15:19:33 [Norm]
Norm: I think steps don't change the base URI unless they explicitly say that they do.
15:20:04 [Norm]
Vojtech: So even viewport and split don't change the base URI?
15:20:05 [Norm]
Norm: Right.
15:21:18 [Norm]
Alex: I had always imagined that a lot of the steps we have are identity++; and so if you think of it from that perspective, it's just like changing parts of the infoset, leaving the base URI alone.
15:21:30 [Norm]
...Maybe one of the things we have to do is explain this more carefully.
15:21:47 [Norm]
...We're probably underspecified.
15:22:13 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, I think that definitely needs to be added.
15:23:55 [Norm]
Some discussion of XPath 1.0/2.0 functions for updating base URI.
15:27:23 [Norm]
Norm outlines his proposal for p:set-base-uri
15:29:37 [Norm]
Some discussion of what has a base URI.
15:30:19 [Norm]
Richard: I think we should say that the individual documents produced by p:viewport have the base URI of their document elements.
15:30:26 [Norm]
ACTION: Alex to update the spec so it says this.
15:30:55 [Norm]
Alex: It seems to me that it isn't string manipulation isn't right, what you want is relative URI resolution.
15:31:17 [Norm]
...It seems to me that set-base-uri should also handle the case of relative URI resolution.
15:31:38 [Norm]
Norm: That seems reasonable to em.
15:31:42 [Norm]
s/to em/to me/
15:32:49 [Norm]
Alex: If we wanted to roll this up so that implementors that don't have XPath 2.0 have a step to do this, we need to think about this a little bit more.
15:33:58 [Norm]
Norm: I'd be very happy if we continued to expand this proposal in email.
15:34:33 [Norm]
Some discussion of whether we want variables or functions.
15:34:47 [Norm]
Richard: For finding base-uri, I don't think it makes any sense to have a variable.
15:35:41 [Norm]
...I think it should be a function that returns the base URI of an element.
15:36:00 [Norm]
...Maybe it just makes sense for us to provide a suite of extension functions in XProc.
15:36:32 [Norm]
...get the base URI, resolve it to an absolute URI, relativize it against a base URI, etc.
15:37:15 [Norm]
Norm: Maybe my step idea was ill-conceived. Perhaps we should just make extension functions; that resolves the XPath version issue.
15:37:59 [Norm]
Vojtech: I agree with this, but I think we also need to say how the base URI is passed between steps.
15:39:03 [Norm]
Richard: You can't say the base URI is the same, you have to say something like: the base URI of the primary output is teh same as the base URI of the primary input unless otherwise stated.
15:39:22 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to review the steps to clarify which ones change base URIs and how.
15:40:19 [alexmilowski]
15:40:30 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
15:41:05 [Norm]
Norm: I'm inclined to agree with Richard and say we should persue this with extension functions.
15:41:58 [Norm]
Alex reports that it's label-elements that has a magic variable, but that change isn't reflected int he spec.
15:42:07 [Norm]
ACTION: Alex to update label-elements in the spec
15:42:40 [Norm]
ACTION: Richard to draft a proposal for the new functions
15:43:37 [Norm]
Norm: Are these decisions sufficient to cover issue #83?
15:43:40 [Norm]
Vojtech: I think so.
15:43:55 [Norm]
Topic: What else do we need to do
15:44:23 [Norm]
1. We need to implement the decision of today, clearer prose and new extension functions
15:44:41 [Norm]
2. We need to review the parallelism appendix
15:45:06 [Norm]
3. We need to update the label-elements step, check other steps
15:45:48 [Norm]
Vojtech: I have a question about insert.
15:46:03 [Norm]
...You can insert only a single document or element, should we allow a sequence?
15:46:33 [Norm]
Norm: Indeed, I don't see why insertion couldn't be a sequence
15:47:36 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone think we shouldn't?
15:47:45 [Norm]
Alex: We have the same rules for detecting errors as anywhere else, so I think that's fine.
15:47:51 [Norm]
Proposed: Change insertion port to be a sequence
15:48:09 [Norm]
15:48:43 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
15:49:05 [Norm]
None heard.
15:49:10 [Norm]
15:49:14 [Zakim]
15:49:15 [Zakim]
15:49:15 [Zakim]
15:49:17 [Zakim]
15:49:18 [Zakim]
15:49:21 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
15:49:21 [Zakim]
15:49:23 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:49:23 [AndrewF]
15:49:24 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.415.404.aaaa, PGrosso, Norm, Jeroen, alexmilowski, richard, Andrew
15:49:25 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:49:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
15:51:07 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
16:04:11 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
17:34:26 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
17:34:56 [Norm]
RRSAgent, bye
17:34:56 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items saved in :
17:34:56 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Alex to update the spec so it says this. [1]
17:34:56 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:34:56 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to review the steps to clarify which ones change base URIs and how. [2]
17:34:56 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:34:56 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Alex to update label-elements in the spec [3]
17:34:56 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:34:56 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Richard to draft a proposal for the new functions [4]
17:34:56 [RRSAgent]
recorded in