18:01:17 RRSAgent has joined #sml 18:01:17 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-sml-irc 18:01:24 +Kirk 18:01:27 -julia 18:01:29 +julia 18:02:16 +Sandy 18:02:49 +[Microsoft] 18:02:50 meeting: W3C SML Teleconference of 2008-07-17 18:02:57 scribenick: Sandy 18:03:01 scribe: Sandy Gao 18:03:27 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jul/0036.html 18:03:29 pratul has joined #sml 18:03:42 chair: Pratul Dublish 18:04:11 regrets: John, Jim, YuChen 18:04:53 Agenda at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jul/0036.html 18:05:44 Zakim, Microsoft is me 18:05:44 +pratul; got it 18:06:13 ginny has joined #sml 18:09:46 +Kumar 18:09:56 Kumar has joined #sml 18:10:09 -julia 18:11:02 +julia 18:12:10 regrets: +Yu Chen Zhou 18:13:24 s/regrets/tobedeleted 18:13:32 rrsagent, make log public 18:13:36 rrsagent, generate minutes 18:13:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-sml-minutes.html Sandy 18:15:12 topic: Minutes approval 18:15:26 RESOLUTION: WG approves 2008-07-10 minutes at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jul/att-0027/10-sml-minutes.html 18:16:04 + +1.530.823.aaaa 18:16:11 topic: 5542 How are SML URIs absolutized 18:16:20 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5542 18:16:21 zakim, aaa is me 18:16:21 sorry, ginny, I do not recognize a party named 'aaa' 18:16:33 > zakim, aaas is me 18:29:30 WG: This bug current has component = core. We clarified that this bug affects both Core and IF. Will change "compoment" to reflect it. 18:32:00 John's proposal (option 4): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jul/0019.html 18:33:07 Kumar: still not sure why we need to care about xml:base when schema doesn't require it. 18:33:36 Ginny: schema didn't have too much to do with xml:base other than schema location, but the locations themselves are not required. 18:34:31 ... I did get confirmation that xml:base is supported in processors. 18:34:43 [Definition:] Fully conforming processors are network-enabled processors which are not only both ·minimally conforming· and ·in conformance to the XML Representation of Schemas·, but which additionally must be capable of accessing schema documents from the World Wide Web according to Representation of Schemas on the World Wide Web (§2.7) and How schema definitions are located on the Web (§4.3.2). . 18:35:09 Kumar: are you sure that schema locations are not required to be processed? (see the above definition) 18:35:36 Ginny: don't think it's relevant. 18:36:30 http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#concepts-conformance 18:36:31 Kumar: not related to schema location. if these processors can fetch documents from the Web, shouldn't xml:base be used? 18:38:10 Sandy: to repeat MSM's argument. 2E is only supposed to fix errors in 1E. not referring xml:base (not available when 1.0 was issued) was not an error, which is why 2E didn't include it. 18:40:01 Kumar: but does schema 1.1 support xml:base? if w3c really thinks xml:base should be used everywhere, schema should support it. 18:42:39 Kumar: If W3C really wanted xml:base to be used, they could have added the requirement to schema 1.0 2E spec stating that its omission in the 1E was an error. 18:43:32 s/xml:base is supported in processors./HP is comfortable with support xml:base and has found xml:base support where needed. 18:44:44 -Kirk 18:45:17 Pratul: maybe whether schema requires xml:base shouldn't be our focus. we should focus on what's the best for our spec, our implementations, and migration of existing models. 18:45:26 Ginny: agree to what Pratul said 18:45:30 Kirk: agree too 18:45:43 I'm having phone problems; I get back on. 18:46:16 Kumar: supporting xml:base has a direct impact on existing implementations. 18:46:51 + +1.603.991.aabb 18:47:15 zakim, aabb is me 18:47:15 +Kirk; got it 18:47:41 Ginny: like to hear Kumar's opinion on John's option 4; and we need all parties, including Michael and John, to participate. 18:48:45 I'm on my cell phone with terrible a bad connection 18:48:54 Pratul: John will be away for a few weeks. May not be able to wait for him. Michael is not here today. People here should try to reach agreement. 18:49:00 I can hear OK 18:50:49 Kumar: this is a compromise that i'm willing to consider. 18:50:55 Kumar: the existing SML validator implementations are layered on top of XML schema processors. The schema processor themselves do not support xml:base becase the XML schema spec does not require or recommend it. Because the underlying schema processor does not support it, the layer on top has to add that support. 18:52:40 Julia: Ginny's suggested change seems to be significant. It seems to change point 5 from optional to required. 18:54:16 Ginny: I need to check the spec. Consumers are required to do much. It's validators that really need to support this. If all validators need to support "aliases", then that would imply that xml:base is also required. 18:54:37 Pratul: what does it mean for a producer to support xml:base. 18:55:09 Ginny/Kirk: you must be capable of producing xml:base, to ensure inter-op. 18:55:54 Kumar: making xml:base required instead of optional in point 5 is a significant change. This is different from aliases. 18:58:29 ... a related issue. comment #2 in 5542 from Henry: there is difference between requiring [base URI] and requiring xml:base. 18:58:39 Ginny: what does it mean to refer to the [base URI] property? 18:59:30 Sandy: allows its value to be computed using different means, including from xml:base or other sources. 19:03:09 Ginny: during interchange model validation, are aliases required to be processed? 19:03:23 Kumar: yes 19:06:20 Ginny: if comsumer support of xml:base is optional, then that consumer may not be able to process a model that makes use of xml:base. 19:06:38 Kumar: yes, as with any other optional features, like schema 1.1. 19:07:32 Ginny: think I can live with that. still want a statement about the future of smlif:baseURI. could be non-normative. 19:08:39 Kumar: point #1 says only allow smlif::baseURI only in the model element. currently we allow it both at model level and document level. 19:09:19 Ginny: because, according to earlier discussion, existing models only use smlif:baseURI in 19:09:55 Pratul: maybe we just remove point #1. Support is already optional. 19:10:12 Kumar: I can live with that, points 2-5. 19:12:16 Pratul: so proposal on the table: a) bullets 2-5 in John's email (option 4) and b) a statement that smlif:baseURI may be deperacated in future versions of the spec. 19:12:43 Julia: we could say "the intention of the writer of this spec is to deperate this feature if a future version is introduced". 19:13:19 s/deperate/deprecate 19:13:22 s/writer/authors 19:15:19 RESOLUTION: adopt the proposal a) bullets 2-5 in John's email (option 4) and b) a statement that "01the intention of the authors of this spec is to deprecate this feature if a future version is introduced" for IF. 19:15:58 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jul/att-0002/20080625-sml-minutes.html#item10 19:17:21 Sandy: the above link is MSM's proposal. it covers Core. 19:18:38 Kumar: what does it mean by "using [base URI]"? 19:19:40 Sandy: similar to other infoset properties (e.g. element name) 19:22:55 Sandy: we need to make sure Core and IF are consistent. if Core only talks about [base URI] and IF only taks about smlif:baseURI and xml:base, then readers may be confused. Need to connect them. 19:26:33 Sandy: concretely, we use [base URI] in both Core and IF. In IF, we additionally describe how [base URI] is computed, from either smlif:baseURI or xml:base, whichever is supported by the comsumer. 19:28:27 +Kirk.a 19:28:32 -Kirk 19:29:33 Kumar: also need to describe how [base URI] is computed in Core: impl-defined, but need to be consistent with the 4 steps described by the relevant RFC. 19:31:20 Sandy: that would be correct, but may not be necessary. implied by the definition of the [base URI] property. 19:34:18 Kumar: is information from the 4 steps required to be made available? e.g. if xml:base appears in the document, but my processor doesn't make it available, then it may not end up in the [base URI] property. 19:34:32 Sandy: yes, that matches my understanding. 19:35:02 Ginny: we might have to say something about case when both smlif:baseURI and xml:base appear in the IF document. 19:36:44 Proposal 19:36:46 In IF, we additionally describe how [base URI] is computed, from either smlif:baseURI or xml:base, whichever is supported by the comsumer. 19:37:21 In core, require the use of [base URI] 19:38:08 and say that its computation is impl-defined, but need to be consistent with the 4 steps described by the relevant RFC. 19:39:47 RESOLUTION: WG agrees to the above proposal from Pratul. 19:41:13 s/WG agrees/on 5542, in addtional to the resolution above on smlif:baseURI vs. xml:base, the WG agrees 19:41:20 rrsagent, generate minutes 19:41:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-sml-minutes.html Sandy 19:42:44 topic: 5543 SML URI seems overconstrained 19:42:50 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5543 19:43:51 because a) not all xml processors are *required* to expose DTD IDness, and b) schema IDs may or may not be recognized depending on whether you actually do schema validation.04 01the best we can do is probably to allow bare name, but makes its behavior impl-defined. 19:45:51 Pratul: what does impl-defined mean? can a processor just always return null? 19:46:42 Sandy: a little stronger. the feature is required and processors are expected to try their best to resolve it. e.g. if schema validation was performed, then schema ids should be recognized. 19:47:00 Kumar: agree. schema IDs are available in PSVI. 19:49:15 http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/#dm-is-id 19:50:39 Sandy: the above link (and other places in the XDM spec) describes how IDs are recognized. 19:51:10 ... in particular, sections 6.2.4 and 6.3.4 on schema IDs. 19:52:06 Kumar: this looks a little more complicated than what I thought. will need some time to look at this. 19:52:34 topic: 5797 SML validity appeal to schema-validity is underspecified 19:52:41 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5797 19:58:14 Sandy: we were considering "strict-wildcard" mode, but the concern was about models who don't schema documents, then most likely they would always be marked not valid. 19:59:32 Sandy: possible solutions. a) when there is no schema document at all, then use "lax-wildcard", otherwise "strict". or b) for instances documents covered by at least one "schema binding", use "strict"; if an instance is not covered by any "schema binding", then use "lax". 20:03:02 -Kumar 20:03:04 -Kirk.a 20:03:05 -julia 20:03:09 -ginny 20:03:15 -Sandy 20:03:30 Sandy: (a) is easy to specify, but doesn't cover all cases. (b) also has a problem because instances that are not governed by any schema binding is supposed to use the "default schema", so using "lax" may not be appropriate. 20:04:00 -pratul 20:04:01 XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended 20:04:02 Attendees were julia, Kirk, Sandy, pratul, Kumar, +1.530.823.aaaa, ginny, +1.603.991.aabb 20:04:08 rrsagent, generate minutes 20:04:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-sml-minutes.html Sandy 20:04:31 julia has left #sml 20:04:47 rrsagent, bye 20:04:47 I see no action items