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