IRC log of xproc on 2008-04-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:53:48 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:53:48 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:54:54 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:54:54 [Norm]
Date: 24 Apr 2008
14:54:54 [Norm]
14:54:54 [Norm]
Meeting: 109
14:54:54 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:54:55 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:54:57 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:55:58 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
14:58:14 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
14:58:50 [richard]
i'll be phoning in a couple of minutes...
14:59:05 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
14:59:32 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
14:59:33 [Zakim]
15:00:13 [Zakim]
15:00:15 [Zakim]
15:00:15 [Zakim]
15:00:51 [Zakim]
15:01:49 [Norm]
Regrets: Alessandro, Rui
15:02:01 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:02:17 [Zakim]
15:02:19 [richard]
zakim, ? isme
15:02:19 [Zakim]
I don't understand '? isme', richard
15:02:21 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
15:02:21 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:02:58 [Zakim]
15:03:48 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:04:39 [Zakim]
15:04:43 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is Andrew
15:04:43 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:04:56 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:04:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Vojtech, PGrosso, richard, alexmilowski, Andrew
15:05:07 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Vojtech, Paul, Richard, Alex, Andrew
15:05:43 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
15:05:46 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:05:46 [Norm]
15:05:57 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:05:57 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:05:58 [Zakim]
15:06:01 [Norm]
Norm: I'd like to add this morning's email threads
15:06:20 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:06:20 [Norm]
15:06:30 [Norm]
15:06:39 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 1 May 2008?
15:06:52 [Norm]
Vojtech gives regrets.
15:07:11 [Norm]
Topic: Consideration of the proposed next working draft.
15:07:21 [Norm]
15:07:42 [Norm]
No questions or comments.
15:08:00 [Norm]
Henry will provide updated DTDs and W3C XML Schemas before 1 May.
15:08:13 [Norm]
Topic: Default context for options and variables
15:08:19 [Norm]
Norm attempts to summarize
15:10:38 [Norm]
Norm: We could allow a sequence, but on balance I'd rather not.
15:10:55 [Norm]
15:11:25 [Norm]
Norm: If we leave it an error now, we can always make it not an error later.
15:11:57 [Norm]
Norm: Does anyone want to argue for a change?
15:12:03 [Norm]
None heard, the status quo prevails.
15:12:24 [Norm]
Topic: p:declare-step/p:import in p:declare-step (for atomic steps)
15:12:28 [Norm]
Norm summarizes.
15:13:34 [Norm]
15:13:34 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-617
15:13:34 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
15:13:36 [Zakim]
15:13:45 [Norm]
Henry: Sounds right to me
15:14:00 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Vojtech, Paul, Richard, Alex, Andrew, Michael [xx:13]
15:14:47 [Norm]
Proposed: Make the changes Norm suggests.
15:14:54 [Norm]
15:15:22 [Norm]
Topic: Exclude prefixes on p:inline
15:16:02 [Norm]
15:16:12 [Norm]
Henry: It's a shameless lift from XSLT 2.0, very lightly edited.
15:16:29 [Norm]
...If we haven't changed our minds about doing this, the only thing that really requires peoples attention is the inventory of namespaces
15:16:52 [Norm]
...whcih are excluded by definition. I chose to exclude the two that might actually appear at the top-level in a pipeline.
15:17:07 [Norm]
...I excldued the error namespace and the instance prefix, because I don't think those are going to occur.
15:18:33 [Norm]
Norm: I don't think the .../xproc/1.0 "namespace" is every going to be bound.
15:18:44 [MSM]
What if my pipeline is creating a pipeline?
15:19:40 [Norm]
Norm is confused about stripping the namespace.
15:20:06 [Norm]
Henry: If you want to use the namespace, you can add it back in another step.
15:20:49 [Norm]
Henry: Eliminates any namespace on every node on the tree.
15:21:00 [Norm]
Alex: But it gets put *back in* by namespace fixup.
15:21:36 [Norm]
Henry: Yeah, I guess that works.
15:22:01 [Norm]
Norm: Bah. Do we really need to do this?
15:22:44 [Norm]
Alex: I think it's a very good idea. There are lots of situations where if you want to inline something, having a namespace declaration could be bad for the end result. There are environments where extra namespaces mean different things. IE freaks out on HTML with namespace declarations, for example.
15:22:55 [Norm]
...It may be an edge case, but it's a crucial edge case.
15:22:55 [MSM]
[I don't understand Henry's argument that you MUST remove it everywhere. Why not just say the child of p:inline doesn't inherit any of the specified bindings, so that if it rebinds them they will be there.
15:23:07 [Norm]
Henry: When you need it, you really need it.
15:23:12 [Norm]
Alex: And I think it's easy to describe.
15:23:55 [Norm]
Alex: Getting p:inline right is real work.
15:24:11 [Norm]
Michael: Why do you have to remove them everywhere?
15:24:30 [Norm]
Henry: There's no gaurantee that the datamodel that you have is efficiently implemented. So removing an in-scope namespace from my parent doesn't remove it from me.
15:24:55 [Norm]
Michael: You have to recompute them, but I think it's a mistake to confuse information with APIs.
15:25:27 [Norm]
Henry: It appears to only remove it in one place, but that's because if you have a literal XML fragment in your XSLT stylesheet, the removal applies to all of them..
15:25:29 [Norm]
15:26:37 [Norm]
Some discussion of the XSLT case.
15:27:17 [Norm]
Richard: The XSLT case is copying nodes from the stylesheet to the result. So they aren't copied.
15:27:40 [Norm]
Henry: Right, so it's the same for us. Up until this point, there was no necessity to copy and now there is.
15:29:11 [Norm]
Some discussion of whether nodes that are 'eq' to each other can get passed to different steps.
15:30:52 [Norm]
Richard: I wonder if there's a whole can of worms addressed here.
15:30:59 [Norm]
15:31:12 [Norm]
Henry: I think anyone who uses any kind of stateful data model doesn't have a problem here.
15:32:31 [Norm]
Richard: Suppose you ahve a sequence and the thing you do is count the union of the nodes in the sequence.
15:32:39 [Norm]
Henry: We need to have this in the test suite.
15:33:13 [Norm]
Richard: The excluding of namespaces seems to amount to a "when necessary".
15:34:54 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone against doing this?
15:34:57 [Norm]
None heard.
15:35:28 [Norm]
Michael: I think being able to trim namespace declarations is extremely useful. This seems unnecessarily complicated.
15:35:52 [Norm]
...I agree that XSLT 2.0 does exactly the same thing. Maybe Alex is right that namespace fixup saves it for those of us who use one of the excluded namespaces.
15:35:59 [Norm]
...Do we have the same sort of namespace fixup rules?
15:36:01 [Norm]
Norm: Yes.
15:36:16 [Norm]
Richard: The case where namespace prefix doesn't work is when the prefix is used in content. Because then it isn't noticed.
15:37:04 [Norm]
Richard: Namespace fixup won't gaurantee that you get the right prefix.
15:37:07 [Norm]
Norm: True.
15:37:40 [Norm]
Vojtech: I think the prefixes are the author's responsibility.
15:37:51 [Norm]
Richard: But the excluded namespaces will remove the bindings.
15:38:12 [Norm]
Vojtech: If the XProc namespace is removed automatically, that's a problem. But if you remove the prefix, that's your problem.
15:38:27 [Norm]
Richard: That's not the way it works in XSLT. You specify it with a prefix, but it suppresses the namespace nodes that that prefix maps to.
15:39:06 [Norm]
Henry: So, worst case, you need to use a namespace-rename step.
15:39:25 [Norm]
Proposed: We adopt Henry's proposal for the 1 May draft.
15:39:35 [Norm]
15:40:42 [Norm]
Topic: What happens when @xpath-versions are mixed.
15:41:05 [Norm]
Norm: Attempts to summarize from
15:41:38 [Norm]
Norm: We allow @name, @psvi-required and @xpath-version on the decl. of atomic steps.
15:42:07 [Norm]
Norm: I think they're mostly harmless on atomic steps andw es houldn't worry abou tit.
15:42:37 [Norm]
Norm: What do we want to say about mixed @xpath-versions across calls?
15:43:07 [Norm]
Norm: I think the obvious answers are either, ignore the nested ones or its an error.
15:44:56 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
15:44:59 [Norm]
15:45:00 [Norm]
<p:pipeline xpath-version="2.0">
15:45:00 [Norm]
<p:declare-step type="ex:foo" xpath-version="1.0"/>
15:45:00 [Norm]
15:45:00 [Norm]
15:45:00 [Norm]
15:45:20 [Norm]
Vojtech: The default is 1.0 so what happens with the base steps.
15:45:28 [Norm]
Norm: That's a good point.
15:47:03 [Norm]
Norm: I don't think we can expect implementations to do both.
15:47:07 [Norm]
Henry: The problem is in libraries.
15:49:33 [Norm]
Norm: I think we need to say that an unspecified version is license to use whatever you want and mixing them is a dynamic error.
15:50:15 [Norm]
Henry: How do we avoid screwing users unnecessarily. And simultaneiously avoid giving them weird results.
15:51:06 [Norm]
Norm: Uhm...
15:51:13 [Norm]
Henry: What we want is late binding.
15:51:35 [Norm]
Vojtech: If the implementation is prepared to switch, then it should work.
15:52:24 [Norm]
Norm muses
15:52:32 [Norm]
Vojtech: I think the default now is 1.0.
15:53:51 [Norm]
Norm: Static analysis should always show what versions could be used, so maybe late binding is possible.
15:54:15 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to propose how @xpath-version should deal with mixed versions.
15:54:48 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
15:54:56 [Norm]
None heard.
15:55:04 [Zakim]
15:55:05 [Zakim]
15:55:06 [Zakim]
15:55:11 [Zakim]
15:55:16 [Norm]
15:55:17 [Zakim]
15:55:19 [Zakim]
15:55:21 [Zakim]
15:55:22 [Zakim]
15:55:22 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:55:23 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, Vojtech, PGrosso, richard, alexmilowski, Andrew, Ht, MSM
16:00:18 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set log world-visible
16:00:21 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:00:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
17:17:54 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
17:53:43 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
18:00:14 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
19:12:07 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc