IRC log of xproc on 2008-06-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:56:42 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:56:42 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-xproc-irc
14:58:35 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:58:35 [Norm]
Date: 26 June 2008
14:58:35 [Norm]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/06/26-agenda
14:58:35 [Norm]
Meeting: 117
14:58:35 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:58:36 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:58:38 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:00:19 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:00:19 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:00:20 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:00:23 [Zakim]
+Ht
15:01:00 [Zakim]
+[ArborText]
15:01:14 [Zakim]
-Ht
15:01:19 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:01:19 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:01:20 [Zakim]
+Ht
15:01:35 [Zakim]
+??P44
15:01:41 [ruilopes]
Zakim ?? is me
15:01:53 [ht]
zakim, ht has richard
15:02:01 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:02:09 [ruilopes]
Zakim, ?? is me
15:02:09 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
15:02:43 [Norm]
dialing
15:02:44 [Zakim]
+??P56
15:02:53 [MoZ]
Zakim, ?? is me
15:02:53 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
15:03:01 [MoZ]
Zakim, who is there ?
15:03:01 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, MoZ.
15:03:04 [MoZ]
Zakim, who is there?
15:03:04 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, MoZ.
15:03:07 [Zakim]
+Norm
15:03:09 [MoZ]
Zakim, who is here?
15:03:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ht, PGrosso, ruilopes, MoZ, Norm
15:03:10 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
15:03:10 [Zakim]
Ht has richard
15:03:12 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, PGrosso, Zakim, MoZ, Norm, ruilopes, ht
15:03:12 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:03:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ht, PGrosso, ruilopes, MoZ, Norm
15:03:16 [Zakim]
Ht has richard
15:03:55 [Zakim]
+Jeroen
15:04:10 [Vojtech]
Zakim, Jeroen is Vojtech
15:04:10 [Zakim]
+Vojtech; got it
15:04:25 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:04:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ht, PGrosso, ruilopes, MoZ, Norm, Vojtech
15:04:28 [Zakim]
Ht has richard
15:04:57 [Norm]
Present: Henry, Paul, Rui, Mohamed, Norm, Vojtech, Richard
15:05:04 [Norm]
Zakim, mute moz
15:05:04 [Zakim]
MoZ should now be muted
15:05:10 [Norm]
Zakim, unmute moz
15:05:10 [Zakim]
MoZ should no longer be muted
15:05:46 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:05:46 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/06/26-agenda
15:06:04 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:06:05 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:06:11 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:06:11 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/06/19-minutes
15:06:19 [Norm]
Present: Henry, Paul, Rui, Mohamed, Norm, Vojtech, Richard, Alex
15:06:25 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:06:33 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 3 July 2008?
15:06:48 [Norm]
No regrets heard.
15:07:14 [Norm]
Topic: Open actions
15:07:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.404.aaaa
15:08:08 [MoZ]
Zakim, aaaa is me
15:08:08 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
15:08:12 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:08:44 [Norm]
Talk about Henry's action on validation root under technical agenda
15:08:53 [Zakim]
+??P61
15:08:58 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is Andrew
15:08:58 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:09:01 [Norm]
Present: Henry, Paul, Rui, Mohamed, Norm, Vojtech, Richard, Alex, Andrew
15:09:23 [Norm]
Topic: Comments on the latest editor's draft?
15:09:40 [Norm]
Henry reports that 2.7 looks good except for a typo
15:09:58 [Norm]
No other comments heard.
15:10:46 [Norm]
Topic: Relationship between @xpath-version and p:system-property('p:xpath-version')
15:10:48 [Norm]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2008May/0103.html
15:12:40 [Norm]
Richard: Does a similar question arise in XSLT 2.0?
15:13:11 [Norm]
Norm: No, as far as I can tell, you can't ask this question.
15:13:35 [Norm]
Mohamed: It's not in the language, it's only based on the value of the version attribute.
15:14:44 [Norm]
Henry: I think p:xpath-version should only be able to return 1.0 and 2.0
15:15:49 [Norm]
...We don't provide a means for asking all the versions that I can.
15:15:56 [Norm]
s/that I can/that it can/
15:16:01 [Norm]
Richard: What's this for?
15:16:10 [Norm]
Henry: For conditionalizing a pipeline
15:17:26 [Norm]
Norm: The property is only valuable, I think, if the pipeline doesn't specify a version. Then the pipeline can adapt.
15:17:57 [Norm]
Richard: XPath 1.0 backwards compatibility mode only gives different answers, right, it doesn't change the functions available
15:18:01 [Norm]
Norm: Hmm. I'm not sure.
15:18:11 [Norm]
Richard: If that is the case, then the answer they want is probably still 2.0.
15:20:14 [Norm]
Henry: I think we should change the definition of p:xpath-version to report the versions that are available. And decide what 2.0 in 1.0 compatibility mode means. And we should make it clear what the values are and that it's a list.
15:21:12 [Norm]
Norm: I guess the first thing to decide is what backwards compatibility mode.
15:23:35 [Norm]
Norm notes that it's a *static* error to attempt to use XPath 2.0 in a 1.0 processor.
15:23:51 [Norm]
Henry: Then we've got the same problem we had a couple of months ago.
15:24:12 [Norm]
Vojtech: So even a step that isn't called causes an error?
15:24:31 [Norm]
Henry: No, I think what this means is that the error should be dynamic, like it is for psvi-required.
15:25:06 [Norm]
Proposal: Make it a dynamic error if a 1.0 processor attempts to evaluate a 2.0 expression that it cannot determine will yield the right results.
15:26:41 [Norm]
Vojtech: Or if you attempt to use a step that expresses xpath-version=2.0
15:27:08 [Norm]
Henry: I think it was better to put the onus on implementors than on users. Although on balance I think the current plan is a good one, I note that we now move back to putting the onus on users.
15:27:50 [Norm]
Voytech: The problem is that if xpath-version is not set, you get whatever the processor gives you.
15:27:59 [Norm]
...You still need the magic when you write in 2.0 but don't specify it.
15:29:12 [Norm]
Norm: AFIACT all this version stuff is only so authors can say "I know I'm using XPath 2.0 so don't even bother"
15:29:48 [Norm]
Henry: By and large you don't need to use this, you only need to do it if you know an XPath 1.0 processor will get the wrong answer or if the error at this point in the pipeline is too late.
15:30:59 [Norm]
Proposal: Make it a dynamic error if a 1.0 processor attempts to evaluate a 2.0 expression that it cannot determine will yield the right results. A 1.0 processor which encounters an explicit xpath-version=2.0 on a step that it is about to evaluate must throw this error.
15:33:21 [Norm]
Richard: If you put something in that uses XPath 2.0 and you don't say what version then a 1.0 processor will fail when it encounters them.
15:33:26 [Norm]
...Not when it's compiling.
15:33:40 [Norm]
Norm: The general rule about compiling statically for dynamic errors you know will occur still applies.
15:33:56 [Norm]
Vojtech: I think it's even more complex because you can have XPath expressions generated dynamically.
15:34:23 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:34:46 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to revise the spec to reflect the new semantics for p:xpath-version and processor support for versions.
15:35:13 [Norm]
Norm: Henry, you wanted the p:xpath-version system property to return a list
15:35:55 [Norm]
Henry: Yes, I think that would be more useful.
15:35:58 [Norm]
Some discussion
15:37:31 [Norm]
Norm: Is "1.0 2.0" ever going to be more information than "2.0"? A 2.0 processor will always work in backwards compatibility mode.
15:37:54 [MoZ]
a < b < c
15:42:46 [Norm]
Norm: The fact that you could have a 2.0 processor that did not support 1.0 BCM suggests to me that Henry is right, it should be a list.
15:43:28 [Norm]
Norm: And I think I don't want to say more than "should be a list, for example 1.0 and 2.0" and not constrain the space any more.
15:43:32 [Norm]
Henry: Works for me.
15:43:58 [Norm]
Vojtech: Is at least one XPath processor required?
15:44:11 [Norm]
Richard: It's going to be very hard to get by without one.
15:45:18 [Norm]
Vojtech: So what is the answer?
15:46:40 [Norm]
Norm: The system property returns either "1.0" or "1.0 2.0" and it should return that answer irrespective of waht any ancestor element's xpath-version attribute specifies.
15:47:03 [Norm]
Topic: p:schema-import?
15:48:58 [Norm]
Norm attempts to summarize
15:52:12 [Norm]
Some discussion of whether or not the instance has enough information to answer the question without a schema-import.
15:54:22 [Norm]
ACTION: Henry to investigate why XSLT 2.0 required a schema-import and how we might be able to get by without it.
15:55:07 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
15:55:12 [Norm]
None heard.
15:55:15 [Norm]
Adjourned.
15:55:17 [Zakim]
-Ht
15:55:18 [Zakim]
-PGrosso
15:55:18 [Zakim]
-MoZ
15:55:19 [Zakim]
-Vojtech
15:55:19 [Zakim]
-ruilopes
15:55:21 [Zakim]
-Norm
15:55:21 [Zakim]
-Andrew
15:55:34 [Zakim]
-MoZ.a
15:55:35 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:55:36 [Zakim]
Attendees were PGrosso, richard, ruilopes, MoZ, Norm, Vojtech, +1.415.404.aaaa, Andrew
15:56:27 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
15:56:34 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:56:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-xproc-minutes.html Norm
15:58:41 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
17:34:56 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc