IRC log of xproc on 2008-10-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:58:44 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:58:44 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:58:46 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:58:46 [Norm]
Date: 2 Oct 2008
14:58:46 [Norm]
14:58:46 [Norm]
Meeting: 127
14:58:48 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:58:50 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:58:51 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:58:53 [Norm]
Regrets: Henry, Mohamed, Michael
14:59:16 [Norm]
Regrets are wrong
15:01:31 [PGrosso]
Zakim, this is XML_P
15:01:31 [Zakim]
ok, PGrosso; that matches XML_PMWG()11:00AM
15:01:36 [Norm]
thanks, paul
15:01:42 [Norm]
I'll be there in a few minutes. I have to take another short call, less than 10min. Amuse yourself by reading the open issues list in my absence :-)
15:01:50 [ruilopes]
Zakim, ??P1 is me
15:01:50 [Zakim]
+ruilopes; got it
15:01:55 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
15:01:55 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
15:02:55 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:02:55 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:02:56 [Zakim]
15:03:42 [Zakim]
15:03:43 [ht]
s/Regrets: Henry, Mohamed, Michael/
15:03:51 [ht]
s/Regrets: Henry, Mohamed, Michael//
15:03:58 [ht]
zakim, ? is Richard
15:03:58 [Zakim]
+Richard; got it
15:04:06 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
15:04:14 [richard]
zakim, ? is me
15:04:14 [Zakim]
sorry, richard, I do not recognize a party named '?'
15:04:18 [richard]
zakim, richard is me
15:04:18 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:04:29 [ht]
15:04:43 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: XProc WG meets today,
15:04:47 [ht]
15:05:05 [ht]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:05:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ruilopes, PGrosso, Ht, richard
15:05:58 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:06:01 [Norm]
ok. i'm peddling as fast as I can
15:06:20 [ht]
Next meeting: 9 October, no regrets noted
15:06:36 [Zakim]
15:06:56 [ht]
Minutes accepted as posted
15:08:00 [ht]
Topic: Namespace binding examples
15:08:00 [ht]
15:08:48 [ht]
Mohamed, are you joining us?
15:08:51 [ht]
15:09:04 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.378.aaaa
15:09:09 [Norm]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:09:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ruilopes, PGrosso, Ht, richard, Andrew, +1.646.378.aaaa
15:09:22 [Norm]
Present: Rui, Paul, Henry, Richard, Andrew, Norm
15:09:25 [Norm]
Zakim, aaaa is norm
15:09:25 [Zakim]
+norm; got it
15:09:45 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code ?
15:09:45 [Zakim]
the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), MoZ
15:10:31 [Zakim]
+ +95247aabb
15:10:41 [MoZ]
Zakim, aabb is MoZ
15:10:41 [Norm]
Present: Rui, Paul, Henry, Richard, Andrew, Norm, Mohamed
15:10:44 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
15:11:05 [Norm]
15:12:04 [Norm]
Henry: I read it again and while it was complex, that complexity stems from the complexity of the feature, I think.
15:12:14 [Norm]
...I was left feeling that I wish we didn't have to do this.
15:12:16 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:12:24 [Norm]
Norm: But we do...
15:13:20 [Norm]
Norm: if anyone has any specific suggestions, I'd be happy to try, but I've done all I can.
15:13:47 [Norm]
Mohamed: I think the examples are fine; I think it could be simpler, but mostly I just don't want users to be confused.
15:14:44 [Norm]
Norm: I think most users will never need this, and hopefully by the time they do, there will be nice tutorials somewhere.
15:15:09 [Norm]
Norm: Proposal: we're done, the revised prose is fine.
15:15:12 [Norm]
15:15:35 [Norm]
Topic: 008
15:16:05 [Norm]
Norm: This was a comment RELAX NG step. Henry pushed a little bit about APIs. And I went off and took a closer look.
15:18:01 [Norm]
Norm summarizes his email.
15:18:13 [Norm]
Norm: Err, dtd-id-idref-errors should be dtd-id-idref-warnings
15:18:16 [Norm]
Henry: Works for me.
15:18:34 [Norm]
Proposal: Accept Norm's suggestions, close the issue.
15:18:43 [Norm]
15:18:58 [Norm]
Topic: 032
15:19:57 [Norm]
Norm summarizes the thread.
15:20:12 [Norm]
Proposal is in:
15:20:47 [Norm]
Henry: I don't understand the phase thing, but I'm not going to argue about it.
15:21:03 [Norm]
Proposal: Accept Norm's suggestions and close the issue.
15:21:13 [Norm]
15:22:35 [Norm]
Topic: 033
15:23:46 [Norm]
Norm: The proposal is to standardize SVRL as the output.
15:24:08 [Norm]
Henry: I have no problem saying that implementations SHOULD use SVRL[reference] for this purpose.
15:25:23 [Norm]
Henry: The substantive issue of another output port for positive reports probably does need a new port.
15:26:43 [Norm]
Norm: We already have a secondary port, can't we just put postive reports there?
15:27:13 [Norm]
Henry: So it's impl defined what goes on that port. The only thing that's for sure is that if assert-valid is true then errors will go there if there are errors.
15:28:10 [Norm]
Proposal: All reports (error or otherwise) go on the report port. We'll say that the output SHOULD be in SVRL.
15:28:28 [Norm]
15:28:53 [Norm]
Topic: 034
15:30:17 [Norm]
Norm: This amounts to a proposal for a secondary port on the validation steps on which the answer 'true' or 'false' appears depending on whether or not the validation was successful.
15:31:44 [Norm]
Henry: I got a private reply from James.
15:32:26 [Norm]
Henry: He agrees that try/catch can be used, but thinks it would be more consistent if the result was available directly.
15:33:15 [Norm]
Henry: Part of the problem is that in my pipeline, I support the PSVI and I have an extension function that makes it trivial to get this answer.
15:33:37 [Norm]
...We could put the validity/validation attempted results on the document in an XProc namespace.
15:33:51 [Norm]
Mohamed: Streaming is also a problem.
15:35:47 [Norm]
Some discussion of encoding of PSVI items...
15:36:48 [Norm]
Richard: It's possible that you might want to determine the validity w/o doing anything with the validated result.
15:37:55 [Norm]
Richard: I think the argument you quoted about the output of the step reflects a different idea about what validation means. If you're just asking the question, then it is, but if you're expecting downstream steps to use the result, then it isn't.
15:38:34 [Norm]
Norm: Neither answer seems compelling to me.
15:39:07 [Norm]
Henry: What's someone going to do with this result? Presumably they're going to put a choose in and write to subpipelines anyway...
15:39:14 [Norm]
Richard: Maybe not, maybe the answer is just true/false
15:39:41 [Norm]
Norm: But that's not terribly useful by itself.
15:40:02 [Norm]
Mohamed: I don't think it's worth having this answer. It would make streaming imposible, so try/catch wouldn't be too much of a burden.
15:40:18 [Norm]
...You just write your own wrapper pipeline to get the result.
15:40:34 [Norm]
...Even in the proposal, there's the idea that you might want the error, etc. So that should be done in a try/catch.
15:40:36 [Norm]
Henry: Yeah, I agree.
15:40:58 [Norm]
...This just encourages too many different ways to write the same thing.
15:41:33 [Norm]
Norm: We earlier set "can you do it yourself" as a criteria for new steps, that can apply here.
15:42:02 [Norm]
Mohamed: Right. This would change all the validate steps which is too big a change from my perspective.
15:42:19 [Norm]
Propsal: Reject this request, you can get the result yourself with existing features of XProc
15:42:34 [Norm]
15:42:44 [MoZ]
15:43:28 [Norm]
Topic: Where are we?
15:43:44 [Norm]
Norm: Basically finished! The XSL/Query comment needs more work, but there's nothing major in it.
15:44:05 [Norm]
... The question of XML encryption/decryption/c14n, etc. is something we'll discuss with the XML Security WG next week.
15:44:09 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
15:45:34 [Norm]
Norm describes his feelings about security which amount to putting the new steps in a separate document.
15:45:45 [Norm]
Henry: I've supported that approach already.
15:46:21 [Norm]
Mohamed: I think I agree. My proposal a few months ago was to put it all in a parameter port and try to standardize with a clear proposal. It ends up being the same to have it a separate note or REC-track document.
15:47:06 [Norm]
Mohamed: On C14N, we've already discussed this and said it was a user-defined option on serialization.
15:47:38 [Norm]
Norm: Good point! Thank you, Mohamed.
15:47:54 [Norm]
Topic: Test suite
15:50:25 [Norm]
Norm outlines that we'll get to CR just after the f2f. But we need tests to get out.
15:50:31 [Norm]
Mohamed: How will we split up the work?
15:50:42 [Norm]
Norm: Submit tests and I'll contrive to get some reports about what the coverage is.
15:51:28 [Norm]
Norm: If people submit tests, I'll write some reports on analytics.
15:51:33 [Norm]
Mohamed: Ok, I'll write some tests.
15:52:06 [Norm]
Henry: If I have an idle day, I'll look at what would be required to convert my private tests into our format.
15:52:51 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to update teh RELAX NG grammer for the test suite vocabulary
15:52:56 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
15:53:02 [Norm]
None heard.
15:53:05 [Norm]
15:53:09 [Zakim]
15:53:11 [Zakim]
15:53:11 [Zakim]
15:53:13 [Zakim]
15:53:13 [Zakim]
15:53:14 [Zakim]
15:53:14 [Zakim]
15:53:15 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:53:16 [Zakim]
Attendees were PGrosso, ruilopes, Ht, richard, Andrew, +1.646.378.aaaa, norm, +95247aabb, MoZ
15:53:17 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
15:53:21 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:53:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
15:53:24 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
15:53:47 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
16:51:27 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
17:32:50 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc