IRC log of xproc on 2008-06-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:51:00 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:51:00 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:51:02 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:51:02 [Norm]
Date: 5 June 2008
14:51:02 [Norm]
14:51:02 [Norm]
Meeting: 114
14:51:02 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:51:03 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:51:07 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:56:45 [ruilopes]
ruilopes has joined #xproc
14:57:35 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
14:58:27 [Norm]
Zakim, this will be xproc
14:58:27 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
14:58:33 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
14:58:38 [Zakim]
14:58:40 [Zakim]
15:00:14 [Norm]
Regrets: Paul
15:02:56 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:03:36 [Zakim]
15:03:42 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is Andrew
15:03:42 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:05:03 [ruilopes]
ruilopes has joined #xproc
15:05:41 [Zakim]
+ +1.857.362.aaaa
15:06:01 [Norm]
Zakim, aaa is ruilopes
15:06:01 [Zakim]
sorry, Norm, I do not recognize a party named 'aaa'
15:06:05 [Norm]
Zakim, aaaa is ruilopes
15:06:05 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
15:06:21 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:06:21 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:06:23 [Zakim]
15:06:56 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:06:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, Vojtech, Andrew, ruilopes, Ht
15:07:34 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Vojtech, Andrew, Rui, Henry, Richard
15:07:45 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:07:45 [Norm]
15:07:57 [Norm]
15:08:02 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:08:02 [Norm]
15:08:11 [Norm]
15:08:14 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
15:08:23 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: 12 June 2008
15:08:38 [Zakim]
15:08:41 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
15:08:41 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:08:44 [Norm]
Norm gives likely regrets
15:09:02 [Norm]
Henry to chair if Norm sends an agenda in time
15:09:26 [Norm]
Rui gives regrets for 12 June
15:09:35 [Norm]
Andrew gives regrets for 12, 19 June
15:10:16 [Norm]
Topic: Kind of node matched
15:10:28 [Norm]
15:11:02 [Norm]
Norm: I think the thrust here is that we should be more explicit in all our steps
15:11:25 [Norm]
Henry: If it is the case that there's a majority case, then we could document that and only document exceptions
15:12:38 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to incorporate the suggestion to clarify the types of nodes matched by the steps into the next draft
15:14:33 [Norm]
Some discussion of (public-) list; action on Henry ongoing
15:15:27 [Norm]
Vojtech: We should align error codes for matched nodes of the wrong type.
15:15:40 [Norm]
Norm: So a single error code for "you got the node type wrong"?
15:15:53 [Norm]
Vojtech: Or one for each kind of error.
15:16:40 [Norm]
Norm: I think that's a good idea.
15:17:22 [Norm]
Henry: We could have errors for text-node-not-allowed, element-node-not-allowed, etc.
15:17:32 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, I agree that's more informative.
15:18:19 [Norm]
Proposal: Replace random dynamic errors for this case with a set of five, one for each node type.
15:18:34 [Norm]
15:18:53 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to replace the random dynamic errors with the five so agreed
15:19:03 [Norm]
Topic: p:pack
15:19:56 [Norm]
Wait until Mohamed is present,
15:20:00 [Norm]
15:20:09 [Norm]
Topic: pfx:atomic-step
15:20:53 [Norm]
Vojech: I think it's about the same prefix that we're using for built-in steps and extension steps.
15:21:36 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
15:21:46 [Norm]
Norm: Right. I'll fix that.
15:22:18 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to fix the patterns so that they don't have the same prefix in 4.7 and 4.8
15:22:32 [Norm]
MoZ, is that what you wanted for the pfx:atomic-step comment?
15:22:49 [Norm]
Topic: Questions about p:http-request
15:23:22 [Norm]
Vojtech: A couple of points; first, one of the examples is still using c:http-request/c:http-request.
15:23:25 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, that's a bug.
15:24:20 [MoZ]
Norm, sorry I just joined so I don't have access to IRC history, I'll take a look to the minutes after the telcon
15:24:25 [Norm]
Vojtech: In Section there's an attribute @detailed which if it's set to false, it's not clear what the step should generate.
15:25:42 [Norm]
Vojtech: I think that if detailed=false, the c:response is not generated.
15:25:47 [Norm]
ACTION: Alex to investigate
15:27:13 [Norm]
Vojtech: And then there's the question of what to do if the response is a multipart response where there are nested multiparts.
15:27:51 [Norm]
Norm: It's not immediately clear that that makes sense for us, but we should investigate.
15:28:03 [Norm]
ACTION: Alex to investigate
15:28:19 [Norm]
Vojtech: Two more things.
15:28:28 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-617
15:28:28 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
15:28:30 [Zakim]
15:29:01 [Norm]
...In Section there are two conditions: if the content-type is XML or the encoding is base64 or not.
15:29:22 [Norm]
...Then different things can happen, but it seems to me that if the content-type is XML and encoding is base64 then the result is unspecified.
15:30:04 [Norm]
Norm: I think the right thing is decode it and parse it, but we should say that.
15:30:08 [Norm]
ACTION: Alex to fix.
15:30:43 [Norm]
Vojtech: The last one is more of a question, in there's a note about text/html
15:31:20 [Norm]
...that says it'll be base64 encoded. But earlier it says that text types aren't encoded that way.
15:31:27 [Norm]
...So I wonder what the right answer is.
15:32:13 [Norm]
Norm: Yeah, that does seem strange. I'd have expected the text to just be escaped markup.
15:32:55 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business
15:33:18 [Norm]
None heard.
15:33:29 [Zakim]
15:33:30 [Zakim]
15:33:32 [Zakim]
15:33:33 [Zakim]
15:33:35 [Zakim]
15:33:36 [Zakim]
15:33:36 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
15:33:37 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:33:38 [Zakim]
Attendees were Vojtech, Norm, Andrew, +1.857.362.aaaa, ruilopes, Ht, richard, MSM
15:33:42 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:33:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
17:32:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
18:24:30 [MSM]
MSM has joined #xproc