18:06:26 RRSAgent has joined #sml 18:06:26 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-sml-irc 18:06:34 meeting: W3C SML Teleconference of 2008-07-03 18:06:35 pratul has joined #sml 18:06:42 scribenick: Sandy 18:06:45 scribe: Sandy Gao 18:06:56 offline regrets were sent from Julia and Ginny 18:07:06 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jul/0011.html 18:07:20 chair: Pratul Dublish 18:07:56 + +1.610.277.aadd 18:08:04 topic: Approval of minutes from previous meeting(s) 18:08:14 Jim has joined #sml 18:09:23 6/23 minutes from Kirk: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jul/att-0004/20080623-sml-minutes.html 18:09:44 6/24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jul/att-0003/20080624-minutes.htm 18:10:07 6/25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jul/att-0002/20080625-sml-minutes.html 18:10:31 RESOLUTION: approve 2008-06-23~25 F2F meetings. (See links above.) 18:11:22 topic: 7/10 call 18:12:43 Pratul: Pratul, John won't be able to attend. Need a chair for this meeting. 18:12:49 MSM: won't attend either. 18:13:23 s/Pratul, John/Pratul and John 18:13:54 RESOLUTION: Jim will be the action chair for the July 10 telecon. John will prepare the agenda. 18:14:02 s/action/acting 18:14:37 rrsagent, make log public 18:15:22 topic: 5542 How are SML URIs absolutized 18:15:28 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5542 18:15:48 John: Kumar was going to research MS implementation 18:16:24 Kumar: A subset of Xml schema processors retrieve schema documents from the web. Even though such processors perform URI resolution and dereferencing, the xml schema spec does not require or even recommend such processors to use xml:base for converting schema locations from relative to absolute. 18:16:36 Kumar: The Xml schema spec does not require or recommend processors to expose the baseURI infoset property. This means that the applications that are built on top of xml schema processors cannot get this information from the schema processors. 18:16:50 Kumar: Given that the Microsoft SML validator is built on top of the .net xml schema processor, the proposal that SML must support [baseURI] property and xml:base adds undue implementation burden and potentially creates compatibility issues with existing models. 18:18:05 Kumar: development cost is one aspect; the others are as raised during the F2F. (See the above text pasted by Pratul.) 18:19:11 MSM: can you clarify on the "schema spec" part? schema doesn't define an API, so no place in schema can be read as requiring any recalculation. 18:20:19 http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/ 18:21:23 MSM: schema spec doesn't encourage or discourage xml:base (xml:base didn't exist when schema 1.0 first edition was released) 18:22:50 MSM: but that should not be used to draw conclusions on whether schema thinks xml:base is important or not. 18:23:50 Pratul: wondering what makes it important for SML to support xml:base, given that schema doesn't. 18:24:14 Ginny has asked to delay the decision on this bug for another week. HP has concerns regarding xml:base support. 18:25:01 MSM: this issue was not raised against schema. if it was, then it would have been properly dealt with. it is raised against SML. it provides better inter-op. 18:25:48 ... and solves the common problem (resolving relative URIs) in a standard way. 18:26:24 Pratul: agree to that argument, but it seems that xml:base hasn't had wide support in the XML community. 18:28:03 Jim; Can u articulate HP's concerns re xml:base support? 18:28:24 Kumar: about implementations, Microsoft XML processors (MSXML or .NET) don't have support for xml:base. 18:29:17 Kumar: about the spec, I can understand why 1.0 1E didn't include xml:base, but 2E didn't include it either. 18:30:07 MSM: not including a reference to xml:base in 1E is not an error (because it was not available), which is why it wasn't included as an erratum to 1.0. 18:30:46 Kumar: people can read that to mean that it was not viewed as important enough to fix. 18:30:57 MSM: I don't agree. 18:32:31 Pratul: no one has raised the xml:base issue to the schema spec, is that an indication that people don't think xml:base is important? 18:35:17 Pratul: don't see consensus, also given that HP is not ready. maybe we should defer. 18:36:57 Kumar: don't oppose xml:base in principle, may be OK to include in a future version. Now it's very late to add this to existing SML processors. 18:37:23 topic: 5519 Relationship between SML model validity and XSD validity assessment 18:37:32 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5519 18:38:59 s/existing SML processors./existing SML processors. if we had talked about this a year ago, the result could have been different. 18:43:27 Kirk: the WG discussed this on June 25 (F2F) and said "WG would like to rework the text change". 18:45:18 MSM: suggest to move the first note (in section 8) out of the numbered list, and put it after the existing note. 18:47:54 RESOLUTION: make additional change suggested by MSM (see above) to 5519, mark the bug as editorial, no need to review. 18:48:00 rrsagent, generate minutes 18:48:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-sml-minutes.html Sandy 18:49:19 5797 SML validity appeal to schema-validity is underspecified 18:49:21 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5797 18:49:33 s/5797 SML/topic: 5797 SML 18:50:55 Kumar: as I understand it. element-driven, type-driven, strict wildcard, and lax wildcard. which ones are common? which ones are widely supported? 18:52:51 MSM: schema 1.0 doesn't mandate any one of them. it can start with any mode, and start anywhere. 18:52:59 does schema 1.1 make any stronger stmt about this than 1.0? 18:53:23 Kumar: for SML, we need to always start from the root elements. how to start the type-driven validation? 18:55:35 MSM: we could, in IF, specify element declaratoin or type definitoin to use to start validation; that would require many changes. it'd be simpler to specify wildcard-driven validation. 18:58:54 MSM: element driven is useful. e.g. for HTML,
is valid if wildcard-driven modes are used, but it's not a good HTML document. 19:01:05 Kumar: i can look at the root element name, find the corresponding element declaration, then start element-driven validation? 19:01:38 Sandy: element-driven itself requires the root element to match the declaration. what you described works, but wouldn't be very different from wildcard-driven modes. 19:03:08 Kumar: element-driven and type-driven requires additional metadata. when none is specified, then wildcard-driven is the natural choice. 19:03:15 MSM: yes 19:05:59 Kumar: what modes does COSMOS support? 19:06:20 John: COSMOS uses Xerces as it's schema processor, which, from what I heard, supports all 4 modes. 19:08:05 Sandy: want to allow cases where, for example, layered spec can specify a validation mode. it's important to not forbid that. 19:08:54 s/a validation mode/a validation mode that's different from the default specified in SML 19:12:24 MSM: a concrete example, if a set of HTML pages are transmitted as SML-IF, then it may be desirable to be able to specify that (certain) root elements must be . 19:13:27 ... to properly support it in IF, we may need to modify IF metadata to support element/type driven validation. 19:15:43 A less monolithic approach would be layering: SML allows type-driven validation against a designated type (by being silent about it). A second spec, Fred, defines markup that fits into smlif's extensibility points (xs:any etc) to add the requisite metadata. 19:16:11 I think that's the kind of layering Sandy was alluding to 19:17:03 John: slightly different scenario in terms of spec layering. (see above text from John) 19:17:43 Kumar: need clarification regarding element-driven and wildcard-driven; also strict-wildcard and lax-wildcard modes. 19:19:47 MSM: "select an element declaration based on root name, then use that for element-driven validation" is essentially how wildcard-driven mode works. 19:25:12 editors draft, sml, 8: A conforming SML model is valid if and only if it satisfies all of the following conditions: 19:28:26 MSM: the same PSVI is produced for strict/lax wildcard modes. strict-wildcard mode is an indication to the schema processor or receiving application to treat the input as "bad" if the root can't be strictly validated. 19:28:44 Kumar: is it OK for us to require strict-wildcard mode? 19:29:32 Sandy: that means if a model has no schema document, then most likely the mode would not be marked "valid". 19:32:15 MSM: problem with lax-wildcard is that it's possible to miss certain errors, e.g. a typo in a root element name. 19:32:41 ... but another case is that if all my constraints are in Schematron rule documents, then I can't make the model valid. 19:36:17 [scribe didn't catch the interchange between MSM and John's response] 19:36:42 John: or maybe if count(schema doc) = 0, then lax; otherwise strict 19:38:22 Kumar: maybe in SML, we make the behavior implementation-defined when not all schema components are available. 19:39:07 ... in IF, schemaComplete can be used to indicate whether all components are available. 19:42:09 MSM: back to the spec layering issue, normally "fred validity" (layered on top of SML) should be a subset of "sml validity", so maybe sml should really use lax-wildcard mode. 19:44:13 ... For IF, it is also SML validation, so it can't produce a result different from SML. 19:44:43 ... That is, we need to choose between "fred validity != sml validity" or introducing metadata in IF to support other validation modes. 19:46:03 Kumar: lax-wildcard may not be what users expect. 19:46:33 MSM: agreed. it's most schema users expect; but still concerned about cases where only schematron is used in the model. 19:46:53 s/may not be/may not produce 19:47:02 rrsagent, generate minutes 19:47:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-sml-minutes.html Sandy 19:47:46 topic: 5680 fix errors in schematron variable substitution support text & example 19:47:52 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5680 19:48:01 John: this is changes to non-normative text. 19:48:24 s/is/has 19:49:55 topic: Bugs that need to be resolved to get to the second LC draft 19:50:29 Pratul: 5542 and 5797 19:50:45 John: and possibly barename support (the bug was closed) 19:52:03 s/the bug/the corresponding bug 5543 19:52:42 Kumar: Henry was going to talk to his colleague about infoset ID property 19:55:52 -Kumar 19:56:35 Pratul: add a comment in the bug to indicate that Henry will come back with more information. Don't reopen it. 19:56:43 -Kirk 19:56:45 -MSM 19:56:47 - +1.610.277.aadd 19:56:48 -[Microsoft] 19:57:08 -Sandy 19:57:10 please log my regrets for 7/10-8/5 inclusive in the scribe list 19:57:16 -johnarwe_ 19:57:17 XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended 19:57:18 Attendees were MSM, +1.425.836.aaaa, +1.845.433.aabb, +1.603.823.aacc, Kumar, Sandy, johnarwe_, Kirk, [Microsoft], +1.610.277.aadd 19:57:27 rrsagent, generate minutes 19:57:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-sml-minutes.html Sandy 19:57:28 zakim, aadd is Jim 19:57:28 sorry, johnarwe_, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd' 19:58:18 Jim has left #sml 20:05:42 johnarwe_ has left #sml 22:13:07 Zakim has left #sml 22:13:43 Sandy_ has joined #sml