IRC log of xproc on 2008-08-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:50:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:50:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-irc
14:50:14 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:50:14 [Norm]
Date: 28 Aug 2008
14:50:14 [Norm]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/08/28-agenda
14:50:14 [Norm]
Meeting: 123
14:50:14 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:50:15 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:50:17 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:50:19 [Norm]
Regrets: Vojtech
14:50:36 [MoZ]
Zakim, this will be xproc
14:50:36 [Zakim]
ok, MoZ; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
14:50:40 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
14:50:40 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
14:53:35 [ruilopes]
ruilopes has joined #xproc
14:55:59 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
14:59:24 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
14:59:31 [Zakim]
+Norm
15:00:18 [Zakim]
+??P20
15:00:22 [ruilopes]
Zakim, ? is me
15:00:22 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
15:00:41 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:00:41 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:00:43 [Zakim]
+Ht
15:00:44 [Zakim]
+[ArborText]
15:02:00 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
15:02:49 [Zakim]
+??P40
15:02:58 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
15:02:58 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:03:43 [Zakim]
+MoZ
15:03:45 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:03:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, ruilopes, PGrosso, Ht, richard, MoZ
15:04:57 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Rui, Paul, Henry, Richard, Mohamed
15:04:59 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:05:08 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Rui, Paul, Henry, Richard, Mohamed, Andrew
15:05:16 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:05:16 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/08/28-agenda
15:05:26 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:05:32 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:05:32 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/08/07-minutes
15:05:39 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/08/14-minutes
15:05:52 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:05:58 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 4 Sep 2008?
15:06:15 [Zakim]
+ +1.734.352.aaaa
15:06:23 [AndrewF]
zakim, aaaa is Andrew
15:06:23 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:06:44 [Zakim]
+Alex_Milows
15:07:01 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:07:04 [Norm]
Rui gives regrets for 4 Sep
15:07:43 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Rui, Paul, Henry, Richard, Mohamed, Andrew, Alex
15:07:58 [Norm]
Norm gives regrets for 11 Sep; Henry will chair if there's a call.
15:08:31 [Norm]
Topic: Action items
15:08:43 [Norm]
Norm: Henry is working to get our charter extended through December to align with the other XML WGs.
15:09:08 [Norm]
Topic: Last Call comments
15:09:19 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/08/lastcall/
15:09:24 [Norm]
Topic: Item 001
15:09:58 [Norm]
Norm: I think there's only one item, making the step naming rules non-normative.
15:10:44 [Norm]
Norm: I think we made them normative on purpose and we're unlikely to want to change them.
15:11:01 [Norm]
Henry: I think that's the right thing to do. It gives us a basis for describing steps in URIs if anyone ever wants to.
15:11:15 [Norm]
Proposal: Make no change.
15:11:20 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:11:24 [Norm]
Topic: Item 002
15:11:43 [Norm]
Norm: Also from Jim, a request for namespace aliasing instead of p:namespaces.
15:12:13 [Norm]
Norm: I don't want to make this change.
15:13:03 [Norm]
s/p:namespaces/p:namespace-rename/
15:13:31 [Norm]
Alex: He's asking for something that's related, but not the same as namespace-rename
15:13:58 [Norm]
Henry: The only possible virtue I can see is that it might save you some typing if you happened to have the prefixes in scope.
15:14:20 [Norm]
Henry: I don't think his proposal is substantially different, so why make the change?
15:14:46 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, I'll see if that satisfies him.
15:14:56 [Norm]
Topic: Item 003
15:15:02 [Norm]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2008Aug/0024.html
15:15:41 [Norm]
Norm: This is about RDF and there are some suggested step types here.
15:16:24 [Norm]
Henry: I think we should respond as positively as possible and suggest that absolutely, the Semantic Web Deployment WG should publish a pipeline library with these steps defined as soon as possible.
15:16:52 [Norm]
Norm: I agree, I think the best thing we can do is suggest that the folks with the relevant expertise publish the library.
15:17:02 [Norm]
Henry: They'll get all the interop they need by doing it that way.
15:17:54 [ht]
s/way/way, using a W3C URI for the step namespace/
15:17:57 [Norm]
Norm: I think we might get some pushback that they would like this to be in p: and in V1, but I'm not sure we can practically satisfy that request.
15:18:36 [Norm]
Proposal: Suggest that this is something that folks with the relevant experience undertake asap, but that we won't plan to include it in p: in V1.
15:18:51 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:19:00 [Norm]
Topic: Item 007
15:19:19 [Norm]
Norm: This is from Vojtech, who gave regrets, but I think I can describe it.
15:19:41 [Norm]
...Vojtech observes that p:load requires support for http: and file: URIs and wonders if p:data should do the same.
15:20:12 [Norm]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2008Aug/0089.html
15:20:47 [Norm]
Mohamed: There are now three locations where we need to be clear on what schemes are supported, p:load, p:http-request, and p:data
15:21:17 [Norm]
Norm: And p:document, as it happens.
15:21:55 [Norm]
Norm: It seems odd to call out http: and file:, but maybe it's useful for interoperability
15:22:05 [Norm]
Alex: I think it's useful.
15:23:37 [Norm]
Norm: Does it make sense to rephrase this as general note along the lines: implentations are encouraged to support all practical schems for loading resources, and in particular they SHOULD support file: and http(s): URIs.
15:23:57 [Norm]
Mohamed: That's fine for me.
15:24:30 [Norm]
Richard: I can imagine an implementation that doesn't have any files
15:24:39 [Norm]
Norm: Sure, but then that's a good reason not to obey the SHOULD.
15:24:51 [Norm]
Proposal: Make a general note as outlined above.
15:25:02 [Norm]
...and adjust the spec accordingly.
15:25:05 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:26:03 [Norm]
Topic: Item 008
15:26:54 [Norm]
Norm: I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not sure what the available APIs actually provide.
15:27:06 [Norm]
Henry: Well, that's critically important. I'm less inclined to do this if there's no way to implement it.
15:27:11 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, I'll investigate.
15:27:23 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to investigate RELAX NG APIs for switches to control DTD Compatibility conformance.
15:27:45 [Norm]
Item: 012
15:28:55 [Norm]
Norm: I just wanted to confirm that the WG agrees with me that an XSLT 2.0 step is free to produce PSVI-rich results even if @psvi-required appears no where.
15:30:22 [Norm]
Norm: Even if you said psvi-required=false, a step can still produce PSVI-rich infosets.
15:30:29 [Norm]
...Extra PSVI stuff shouldn't cause any problems.
15:30:36 [Norm]
Henry: Seems right. Do we need to change anything?
15:30:43 [Norm]
Norm: Maybe just add some editorial clarity.
15:31:56 [Norm]
Mohamed: We can put psvi-required on declaration, library, and pipeline. But not on individual steps.
15:32:47 [Norm]
Norm: Interesting, that's true, these are declaration-level attributes, not instance level.
15:33:03 [Norm]
...But maybe that's ok, there's no value in having a single step in the middle of a pipeline require PSVI support. I don't think.
15:33:49 [Norm]
Norm: So I guess the question remains, if you say psvi-required=false, is it an error to produce a PSVI?
15:34:05 [Norm]
Henry: I don't think so, in fact a PSVI capable processor might just ignore psvi-required.
15:34:36 [Norm]
Proposal: Add some editorial clarification.
15:34:53 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:35:04 [Norm]
Topic: Item 013
15:36:18 [Norm]
Norm: I think the salient point is that we should say that how options and parameters are bound outside the pipeline is implementation-defined.
15:36:25 [Norm]
Proposal: Say so.
15:36:36 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:36:48 [Norm]
Topic: Item 014
15:37:26 [Norm]
Mohamed: The example uses p:namespaces where it isn't needed.
15:40:18 [Norm]
Norm: Let's let the editor reconsider the example
15:40:26 [Norm]
Mohamed: I think the example predates the default rule, and that's the problem.
15:40:39 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to reconsider and fix this example
15:41:53 [Norm]
Mohamed: Vojtech observes that it's not clear when we use the short format for the option.
15:42:37 [Norm]
Norm: If you use the short form then you can't use p:namespaces, so you better not need it.
15:42:44 [Norm]
Topic: Item 015
15:43:05 [Norm]
Norm: This encrypt/decrypt and I'm trying to work with the Security WG to resolve this one.
15:43:49 [Norm]
Norm: We do have a use case in our requirements document that requires it.
15:44:14 [Norm]
Mohamed: That's why I've proposed to not normalize too much, maybe we should just say that's what parameters are for, to say implementation-defined.
15:44:42 [Norm]
Norm: Yeah, but having a standard step with no interoperability is a little funky.
15:46:16 [Norm]
Norm: If the Security WG can help us get these crisp, then we'll prbably need to include them, otherwise, we'll have to do something else, maybe what we're suggesting for the RDF steps.
15:46:28 [Norm]
Henry: Maybe at TPAC08 we can hand this off to Thomas if we promise to help.
15:46:34 [Norm]
Norm: That's not a bad idea either.
15:46:39 [Norm]
s/Thomas/Frederick/
15:47:02 [Norm]
Norm: I think we should just leave this open a little longer.
15:47:28 [Norm]
Topic: Item 016
15:48:36 [Norm]
Mohamed: I found two or three things that weren't in sync. For example, for p:insert, I proposed to accept different kinds of nodes depending on the position option.
15:49:44 [Norm]
Norm: I see what you mean, but there are no constraints on p:insert so we can just let the invalid document catch it, right?
15:50:31 [Norm]
Mohamed: What about matching a PI before the document element
15:50:40 [Norm]
Norm: Oh, right. I see. I guess that should really be anything except attribute nodes.
15:50:57 [Norm]
Proposal: Fix p:insert
15:51:04 [Norm]
Mohamed: And p:replace should be the same.
15:51:38 [Norm]
Richard: It should only allow you to match things that can appear on the child axis.
15:52:33 [Norm]
Norm: But matching a document node and inserting a comment as the first-child is a reasonable thing, right?
15:53:55 [Norm]
Richard: It doesn't make any sense to insert something before or after the *document node*
15:54:10 [Norm]
Norm: I'll have to expand the prose a bit.
15:54:53 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to take another crack at getting this right for all the steps.
15:54:57 [ht]
I like Richard's formulation: p:insert allows matching of anything with children if where is first or last, and anything that _is_ a child if where is before or after
15:55:33 [ht]
s/with children/which may have children/
15:55:34 [Norm]
Topic: Item 017
15:55:45 [Norm]
Norm: We need a normative reference for UUIDs, anyone know what it is?
15:55:49 [Norm]
Alex: There's an ISO standard
15:56:18 [Norm]
Alex: It's in the references for the RFC 4122
15:56:32 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, I just looked right past that when I scanned the references.
15:56:39 [Norm]
Proposal: Add the reference
15:57:03 [Norm]
Henry/Alex: Maybe we can refer to both, because the RFC is easier to read?
15:57:05 [MoZ]
[3] ISO/IEC 9834-8:2004 Information Technology, "Procedures for the
15:57:07 [MoZ]
operation of OSI Registration Authorities: Generation and
15:57:08 [MoZ]
registration of Universally Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) and their
15:57:10 [MoZ]
use as ASN.1 Object Identifier components" ITU-T Rec. X.667,
15:57:11 [MoZ]
2004.
15:57:31 [Norm]
Norm: I don't mind having the RFC in the non-normative references.
15:57:48 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:57:55 [Norm]
Topic: Item 018
15:58:10 [ht]
s/018/019/
15:58:45 [Norm]
Proposal: Say they're hex
15:58:49 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:59:01 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
15:59:30 [Norm]
Henry: We've been glibly addressing these issues without classify the changes. I think the way we've proceeded has been perfectly fine.
16:00:00 [Norm]
...At some point we'll have to decide.
16:00:14 [Norm]
Norm: I think we've been making clarifications and small changes.
16:00:50 [Norm]
Henry: Strictly speaking, anything that invalidates a review is out of bounds.
16:00:59 [Norm]
Norm: I don't want to make any of those.
16:01:28 [Norm]
Norm: If I think anything I change in the spec isn't a clarification, I'll bring it back to the WG.
16:01:45 [Norm]
Mohamed: Probably you should make an announcement that there's an implementation.
16:01:48 [Norm]
Norm: Okie dokie.
16:01:56 [Norm]
Henry: Have we invited review of the spec?
16:02:22 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to make sure we've solicited review from the relevant WGs
16:02:25 [Zakim]
-MoZ
16:02:32 [Norm]
Adjourned.
16:02:37 [Zakim]
-Alex_Milows
16:02:38 [Zakim]
-ruilopes
16:02:39 [Zakim]
-Ht
16:02:39 [Zakim]
-Norm
16:02:40 [Zakim]
-Andrew
16:02:40 [Zakim]
-richard
16:02:41 [Zakim]
-PGrosso
16:02:42 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
16:02:44 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, ruilopes, Ht, PGrosso, richard, MoZ, +1.734.352.aaaa, Andrew, Alex_Milows
16:02:44 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
16:02:48 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
16:02:49 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:02:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html Norm
16:59:40 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
17:27:12 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
17:47:45 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
18:28:25 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
18:29:25 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
19:04:36 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc