IRC log of xproc on 2008-09-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:56:10 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:56:10 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:56:15 [Norm]
Zakim, this will be xproc
14:56:15 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
14:58:30 [Vojtech]
Vojtech has joined #xproc
14:58:32 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:58:32 [Norm]
Date: 25 Sep 2008
14:58:32 [Norm]
14:58:32 [Norm]
Meeting: 126
14:58:32 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:58:33 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:58:35 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:58:37 [Norm]
Regrets: Henry, Mohamed, Michael
14:59:23 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
14:59:31 [Zakim]
14:59:44 [Vojtech]
zakim, Jeroen is Vojtech
14:59:44 [Zakim]
+Vojtech; got it
15:00:13 [Zakim]
15:00:25 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:00:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Vojtech, Norm
15:02:14 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:02:16 [Norm]
Ok, thanks for letting me know, Paul
15:02:45 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
15:02:58 [Norm]
Uhm. Only if there's one of the open issues you feel a burning need to disagree with the editor over :-)
15:03:01 [Zakim]
15:03:16 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:03:18 [Zakim]
15:03:19 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
15:03:19 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:03:50 [Norm]
Hmmm. Is anyone talking?
15:04:04 [Norm]
You can't here *me*
15:04:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.734.352.aaaa
15:04:40 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:04:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Vojtech, Norm, Alex_Milowski, richard, +1.734.352.aaaa
15:04:41 [PGrosso]
15:04:49 [AndrewF]
zakim, aaaa is Andrew
15:04:49 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:05:02 [Norm]
Present: Vojtech, Norm, Alex, Richard, Andrew
15:05:23 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:05:23 [Norm]
15:05:27 [Norm]
15:05:33 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:05:33 [Norm]
15:05:40 [Norm]
15:05:47 [Norm]
Our Last Call period ends tomorrow!
15:06:03 [Norm]
Next meeting: 2 Oct 2008
15:06:25 [Norm]
Vojtech gives regrets; Norm at risk, but Henry will chair in his absence.
15:06:50 [Norm]
Topic: Open actions
15:07:05 [Norm]
Revisit after looking at the issues.
15:07:14 [Norm]
Topic: Review of last call comments
15:07:19 [Norm]
Topic: 016
15:07:39 [Norm]
15:08:03 [Norm]
Norm asked us to review the kinds of nodes that can go through select/match patterns on steps
15:08:29 [Norm]
15:09:05 [Norm]
Norm's proposed changes to p:replace
15:09:06 [Norm]
15:10:42 [Norm]
Norm's proposed changes to p:wrap
15:10:59 [Norm]
15:11:36 [Norm]
Richard: I don't have a strong objection, but I'm a bit dubious about having what nodes are ignorable depend on what's on either end.
15:12:10 [Norm]
Vojtech: Can it happen that you have a match that matches an element or a text node.
15:13:03 [Norm]
Richard: What about two text nodes with a comment between them? You might want to group those.
15:13:27 [Norm]
Norm: I see, that would work according to the old rules.
15:13:58 [Norm]
Rejected, stick with the status quo.
15:14:36 [Norm]
Norm: Then Mohamed and I had a short discussion about p:insert, ending with:
15:14:37 [Norm]
15:15:20 [Norm]
Norm's proposed changes to p:insert
15:16:19 [Norm]
15:16:47 [Norm]
Richard: Just a moment. Suppose the match pattern matches a PI before the document element.
15:17:33 [Norm]
Norm: Then we could just let the natural failure mode handle that.
15:18:57 [Norm]
Richard: If we have an error for producing a document that's not well formed, then we could remove that case--we don't need a special error for it.
15:19:08 [Norm]
...Then we could use error 25 for just the case that doesn't make any sense.
15:19:36 [Norm]
Norm: I'm happy with that.
15:20:16 [Norm]
Proposal: Adopt Norm's proposal with Richard's change to error 25.
15:20:29 [Norm]
15:20:37 [Norm]
Topic: 020
15:20:59 [Norm]
Vojtech: In p:replace, we say that we can only replace elements.
15:21:34 [Norm]
...Isn't that like p:insert?
15:21:35 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
15:21:41 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, I must have overlooked that one.
15:22:22 [Zakim]
15:22:59 [Norm]
Norm: So, we should allow match on p:replace to match elements, comments, PIs, and text nodes?
15:24:03 [Norm]
Proposal: Change p:replace as suggested
15:24:22 [Norm]
15:24:26 [Norm]
Now on to issue 20
15:24:56 [Norm]
Norm: I misunderstood issue 020 last time we talked about it. I thought it was about XML encryption/decryption, effectively a dup of the other one.
15:25:09 [Norm]
...But in fact, it's about text-encrypt, a la gnupg.
15:25:21 [Norm]
...I dont' think we ahve a use case for that, so I'm inclined to reject it.
15:26:12 [Norm]
Norm: If we did add it, it would be a little complicated because it would need to be a wrapper.
15:27:17 [Norm]
Richard: Henry suggested we should allow the relevant WGs to invent their own libraries.
15:27:29 [Norm]
Alex: Right. We let users create new steps, so they can do it.
15:27:37 [Norm]
...We'll revisit in 1.1 or 2.0 or something.
15:28:07 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, but we have an encyption/decryption use case in our requirements document, so I'm a little worried.
15:28:33 [Norm]
Richard: Presumably we aren't required to do it if we have a good explanation. Not having the expertise seems like a good reason.
15:29:52 [Norm]
Norm: I'm content to leave the *XML* encryption/decryption case open until after we've been able to speak with the XML Security WG.
15:29:57 [Norm]
...This issue is about text encryption.
15:30:18 [Norm]
Proposal: Reject this issue.
15:30:46 [Norm]
Accepted, no new steps for text encryption/decryption
15:31:13 [Norm]
Topic: 022
15:31:39 [Norm]
15:31:43 [Norm]
Norm summarizes
15:32:31 [Norm]
Norm: I've done my best, does anyone have any other or better suggestions?
15:32:50 [Norm]
Norm: Ok, then I'd like to close the issue.
15:33:02 [Norm]
15:33:14 [Norm]
Topic: 024
15:34:26 [Norm]
Norm: I addressed this by changing the definintion in-scope variables in
15:34:44 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to make the parallel change in
15:36:31 [Norm]
Norm summarizes the changes: defining in-scope variables as being the "specified options" and adding a note about unspecified options.
15:36:49 [Norm]
Norm: Does anyone think that that fails to adequately resolve the issue?
15:37:19 [Norm]
Proposal: That resolves the issue.
15:37:27 [Norm]
15:37:50 [Norm]
Topic: 027
15:38:05 [Norm]
Norm: The change here is wrt the type of options, variables, and parameters
15:40:14 [Norm]
Norm: I've changed the introductory sections to say that the values "MUST be a string or xs:untypedAtomic" where they used to say "MUST be a string".
15:40:26 [Norm]
...I felt that was necessary for consistency with the actual definitions later on.
15:40:31 [Norm]
Norm: Does anyone have reservations about that chagne?
15:40:35 [Norm]
15:40:55 [Norm]
Proposal: That's fine.
15:41:55 [Norm]
15:42:16 [Norm]
Topic: 030
15:42:29 [Norm]
Norm: Let's go through this one.
15:43:06 [Norm]
Norm: I'm inclined to agree with point 1.
15:44:07 [Norm]
No objections.
15:47:33 [Norm]
Richard: It's ok as long as none of *our* steps have any implementation-defined ones.
15:48:46 [Norm]
Richard: Do they want XProc implementations to be allowed to have extra pre-defined namespaces, or whether they merely want it to be possible for certain steps to have certain pre-defined namespaces.
15:49:18 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to follow-up with the XQuery/XSL WGs on this point.
15:50:46 [Norm]
Norm: The only other non-editorial comment is about the XQuery step. I'm inclined to accept comments from the XQuery WG about the p:xquery step.
15:51:58 [Norm]
Sounds ok.
15:52:13 [Norm]
Norm: I'll try to address these in the next draft and bring back any issues that I see.
15:52:43 [Norm]
Topic: 031
15:53:15 [Norm]
Norm: I'm inclned to make no change.
15:53:46 [Norm]
Proposal: Stick with the status quo
15:54:03 [Norm]
15:54:22 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
15:54:56 [Norm]
Vojtech: Someone asked on xproc-dev what the definition of the XSLT match pattern is; is there a clear definition? We should try to clarify that.
15:57:06 [Norm]
Norm: I'm happy to point a little more explicitly to the respective definitions of Pattern in XSLT 1.0 and 2.0.
15:57:16 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to make the XSLTMatchPattern reference a little more explciit
15:57:22 [Norm]
15:57:35 [Norm]
15:57:51 [Zakim]
15:57:52 [Zakim]
15:57:55 [Zakim]
15:57:56 [Zakim]
15:57:59 [Zakim]
15:58:02 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-isible
15:58:04 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
15:58:08 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:58:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
15:58:41 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
16:05:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, Alex_Milowski, in XML_PMWG()11:00AM
16:05:05 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
16:05:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were Vojtech, Norm, Alex_Milowski, richard, +1.734.352.aaaa, Andrew, PGrosso
16:06:01 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
17:35:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
18:51:48 [MSM]
MSM has joined #xproc
19:04:25 [MSM]
19:04:32 [Norm]
19:30:42 [ht]
Norm, I've fixed www-tag (you could have too, you had subscribed via the normal opt-in route for that public list, but it was easy)
19:31:40 [ht]
It appears that TAG members were at some point automagically added to ac-forum, and I haven't yet figured out what to do about that
19:34:51 [Norm]
ok, thanks
19:35:20 [Norm]
I don't believe I double-subscribed. I expect that some automated process did it for some reason
19:35:43 [Norm]
ht, wrt ac-forum, I expect that when I became the AC rep, I got automagically subscribed via my mark logic address
19:35:55 [Norm]
I expect I had previously been subscribed at my personal address
19:36:03 [Norm]
via the TAG, I mean
19:38:28 [ted]
ted has joined #xproc
19:38:31 [ted]
hi norm
19:38:42 [ht]
Ted is the Man
19:38:47 [Norm]
Hi ted
19:38:59 [ted]
you ok with your tag profile being your marklogic one?
19:39:16 [ted]
i think that will keep you from getting two copies of w3c-ac-forum to your two aliases
19:39:39 [Norm]
I have a marginal perference for using the address because of the vagaries of how I read my mail, but if that's the easieast answer, then go for it.
19:41:08 [ht]
This page: suggests that things wrt Norm are still. . .less than clean
19:41:24 [ht]
The two personnae are hopelessly overlapped
19:41:27 [ht]
19:42:02 [ht]
Norm (Mark Logic) is AC, Core, XProc and Chairs
19:42:41 [ted]
two personnas ok. norm, another alternative would be to filter the w3c-ac lists to /dev/null at :)
19:42:47 [ht]
Norman ( is TAG, Core, XML CG, AWWSW and chairs
19:43:09 [Norm]
Yes, I suppose I could engage in more aggressive filtering
19:43:20 [Norm]
Making my address on AC Core XProc and chairs is impractical?
19:43:27 [ht]
Two personnae OK unless they overlap, I would have thought. . . Having both Norm and Norman on XML Core is surely a confusion
19:43:28 [Norm]
I'm not trying to be a PITA, honest !
19:44:01 [ted]
it's understandable, those ac lists can get noisy
19:44:14 [ht]
Ted, I realise you have work to do and this was supposed to be a short interrupt -- cut this short anytime you need to!
19:44:19 [Norm]
And now that I *am* an AC rep, I feel more obligation to read it ;-)
19:46:54 [ted]
btw you, msm and i should talk catalogs sometime, i saw awhile back tag discussed and okayed us publishing catalog. i'll probably take a pass at some point of our more popular ones
19:52:47 [Norm]
Sure, ted, anytime
19:54:21 [ted]
<gerald> I don't see on w3c-ac-forum dist, only
19:54:49 [ted]
so you really getting copies in both places? i don't doubt you but gerald doesn't see how. you are allowed to post to w3c-ac-forum
19:55:07 [ted]
admittedly our ac lists are our most complicated so there may be an indirect route
19:57:41 [gerald]
gerald has joined #xproc
19:58:27 [Norm]
I bet I'm subscribed to tag via, and tag is subscribed to ac-forum
19:58:52 [gerald]
I was just going to check that... that's right
19:59:50 [gerald]
you can opt out of w3c-ac-forum mail in your AC rep role, if you like
19:59:56 [ted]
accept3 threw me
20:00:38 [Norm]
Ok. Maybe I'll try that. I'm sorry, I didn't expect to drag you all into this, I was just hoping ht could quietly fix it.
20:01:29 [Norm]
oops. wrong window.
20:01:46 [Norm]
Just leaving my remote presence at TAG to join another telcon.
20:14:03 [gerald]
norm, I can opt your marklogic persona out of ac-forum if you like... I'm pretty sure there's a page where you could do it but I don't know where it is (I would do it on )
20:14:28 [ted] is the one norm can opt out from
20:14:37 [Norm]
Thanks, ted!
20:15:04 [gerald]
aha, thx
20:16:34 [Norm]
I'll just have to remember to re-enable it if I don't run or get re-elected to the TAG next year :-)
20:19:20 [Norm]
bah, humbug. Now I have to find the credentials for my marklogic address.
20:19:26 [Norm]
Is there a form where I can reset those by myself?
20:20:00 [ted]
20:20:44 [ted]
20:20:54 [ted]
get your account info mailed back to you
20:22:04 [ht]
Norm: This URI doesn't resolve, somewhat surprisingly:
20:27:11 [ht]
In fact, starting at 4.6.1 in the ToC, the ToC links don't work ???
20:28:38 [ht]
FOrget it, some bug in my browser, aborted loading silently :-(
20:28:57 [Norm]
ht: sure it does
20:29:13 [Norm]
I just clicked on it and it worked fine for me
20:35:50 [ht]
OK, this is a real bug, I hope: par1, par1b etc. examples use p:pipe step="main", but there is no step called "main"
20:36:14 [ht]
I've been trying to find the place where we say that name defaults to type on p:pipeline/declare-step, but maybe we took that out?
20:36:39 [Norm]
where are par1, par1b?
20:37:01 [Norm]
Nevermind, found those
20:38:14 [Norm]
yes, we took the name defaulting stuff out
20:38:16 [Norm]
I believe.
20:45:26 [ht]
So, I have just posted the message I've been meaning to for some time, which is the beginning or a sort of signpost for implementing NVDL in XProc
20:53:53 [ted]
ted has left #xproc
20:57:30 [gerald]
gerald has left #xproc
21:22:13 [ht]
RRSAgent, bye
21:22:13 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in :
21:22:13 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to make the parallel change in [1]
21:22:13 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:22:13 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to follow-up with the XQuery/XSL WGs on this point. [2]
21:22:13 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:22:13 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Norm to make the XSLTMatchPattern reference a little more explciit [3]
21:22:13 [RRSAgent]
recorded in