IRC log of xproc on 2008-11-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:05:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
16:05:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/13-xproc-irc
16:05:50 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
16:05:50 [Norm]
Date: 13 Nov 2008
16:05:50 [Norm]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/13-agenda
16:05:50 [Norm]
Meeting: 129
16:05:50 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
16:05:50 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
16:05:52 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
16:05:56 [Norm]
Zakim, who's here?
16:05:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Vojtech, MoZ, Ht, PGrosso, richard, Alex_Milowski, Norm
16:06:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, richard, Vojtech, PGrosso, alexmilowski, ht, MSM, Zakim, MoZ, Norm
16:06:08 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Vojtech, Henry, Mohamed, Paul, Richard, Alex
16:06:34 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:06:34 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/11/13-agenda
16:06:43 [Norm]
Accepted
16:06:48 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
16:06:48 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/10/tpac-minutes
16:06:55 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:07:20 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 20 Nov 2008
16:07:26 [Norm]
Vojtech gives regrets.
16:07:34 [Norm]
Topic: Close remaining last call issues
16:07:51 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/08/lastcall/comments.html
16:08:08 [Norm]
Topic: Issue 053: Creating elements
16:08:50 [Norm]
Proposal: close with no action
16:08:58 [Norm]
Vojtech: I agree, but I think some people might find it strange.
16:09:15 [Norm]
...But a new step would amount to the same amount of code, so it's fine.
16:09:23 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:09:34 [Norm]
Topic: Issue 055: Storing binary data
16:10:19 [Norm]
Norm thinks that a custom method on p:store is probably sufficient, binary data isn't the focus of our language.
16:11:09 [Norm]
Mohamed: Norm used content-type, but we don't have that attribute
16:11:15 [Norm]
Norm: I meant "media-type" I guess.
16:12:11 [Norm]
Mohamed: So it wouldn't be interoperable. So it'd be <p:store method="foo:binary"> ...
16:12:13 [Norm]
Norm: yes.
16:12:40 [Norm]
Alex: Are we putting something like this in the document.
16:12:48 [Norm]
Norm: I was proposing to add a note.
16:13:23 [Norm]
Mohamed: A parallel question: for p:data and c:data it's content-type, that's probably why there was confusion.
16:13:31 [Norm]
...Where does this difference come from?
16:13:48 [Norm]
Alex: HTTP uses a content-type header and all the internet-speak uses media-type. The serialization parameter is called media-type.
16:13:59 [Norm]
Mohamed: The value is the same?
16:14:11 [Norm]
Alex: Yes, the value of the media-type header is a content-type.
16:14:33 [Norm]
...We could decide to be consistent and use media-type throughout and be inconsistent with the HTTP RFC.
16:14:46 [Norm]
Mohamed: I thought the difference might be that content-type also has a charset value.
16:15:19 [Norm]
Alex: That's a good point. Maybe that's why it's called content-type vs. media-type, I'm not sure.
16:16:21 [Norm]
...The names should be separate because the content-type can have parameters.
16:17:35 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, we have two different names, but I think we're going to leave them the way they are.
16:17:49 [Norm]
Mohamed: I just wanted to make sure that we don't mix the two.
16:18:07 [Norm]
Proposal: No change to the spec, but add a note about using an extension to p:store to save binary data.
16:18:22 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:18:47 [Norm]
Topic: Issue 057: p:namespace-rename
16:18:55 [Norm]
Norm summarizes Vojtech's mail
16:19:55 [Norm]
Norm: I don't feel strongly about it, but it does seem a little inconsistent.
16:20:15 [Norm]
Alex: I like the apply-to change, but I'd use the values "elements" and "attributes" without "-only"
16:20:46 [Norm]
Proposal: Rename element-only to apply-to as suggested.
16:20:59 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:21:15 [Norm]
Topic: issue 062: No path specified on p:directory-list
16:21:55 [Norm]
Norm: Anyone remember why we made path optional?
16:22:09 [Norm]
Henry: No, I don't, and it doesn't seem terribly plausible. I think we should just make it required.
16:22:21 [Norm]
Alex: How do you get the current directory of the pipeline or the source document?
16:22:59 [Norm]
Alex: Maybe this meant the current directory the document is in or the current directory of the application?
16:23:22 [Norm]
Henry: You can use the base-uri function. It might be reasonable to say that it peels back to the last forward-slash in the base URI.
16:24:42 [Norm]
Vojtech observes that a relative directory is resolved against the step, so it works out to the same thing as specifying ""
16:27:13 [Norm]
Henry: I do think we need some words that say that everything after the last slash is discarded.
16:27:38 [alexmilowski]
./
16:27:40 [Norm]
Richard: I don't think we need to do that, we could just say that it's the empty string bye default.
16:27:58 [Norm]
s/bye/by/
16:28:05 [Norm]
Norm: Can't we just make it required?
16:28:16 [Norm]
Richard: We can say that if it's not specified it's "."
16:28:27 [Norm]
Mohamed: I think it makes more sense to make it required.
16:28:54 [Norm]
Vojtech: There was a similar problem with p:store, which we fixed by making href on p:store required.
16:29:27 [Norm]
Proposal: Make it required.
16:29:46 [Norm]
Mohamed: Is it possible to add a note to say that use "." for the current directory.
16:29:52 [Norm]
Norm: Sure, we can do that.
16:30:34 [Norm]
Richard: It isn't the current directory, it's the directory you get by resolving "." against the base URI.
16:30:59 [Norm]
Henry: We needed to add that to the Markup Technologies pipeline, but not here, not today.
16:31:48 [Norm]
Richard: Since "." doesn't give the CWD, I think it's much less common.
16:32:02 [Norm]
Norm: So the proposal is to make it required and not add the note.
16:32:11 [Norm]
Accepted.
16:32:33 [Norm]
Topic: Issue 063: Versioning and nested declarations
16:32:37 [Norm]
Norm summarizes
16:35:43 [Zakim]
-Alex_Milowski
16:36:02 [alexmilowski]
must find new phone... battery died
16:37:20 [Zakim]
+Alex_Milowski
16:38:11 [Norm]
Some discussion of whether or not this is really a problem and if it would in fact be a feature for this case to work.
16:38:50 [Norm]
Henry: This is similar to the problem of having two different schemas for the same namespace in the same context.
16:39:10 [Norm]
Henry: I think it's too late to figure out how to cope with this in this version of this language.
16:39:16 [Norm]
Vojtech: I agree
16:39:34 [Norm]
Henry: Somewhat regretfully, we have to say this isn't going to be properly addressed until we get to V2.0
16:40:00 [Norm]
Norm: Vojtech's point is a good one, we could make this work, but not in V1.0
16:40:50 [Norm]
Mohamed: I'm still confused. If you have a V1 processor processing the pipeline so it'll start with a V1 library.
16:44:12 [Norm]
Norm: It just seems to me that asking the implementation to change it's idea of what the pipeline library is half way through invites interoperability issues and mayhem.
16:44:32 [Norm]
Henry: The isn't it better to say that a processor may through an error if it encounters an import of a new version "too late" where "too late" is implementation defined.
16:45:47 [Norm]
Vojtech: Why would we have to go back and change the declaration? The import statement is always in scope for a library or compound step.
16:48:06 [Norm]
Norm: The XProc library is special, it's allowed to include redeclarations.
16:57:56 [Norm]
Norm: Maybe the best we can do is what Henry suggested.
16:59:46 [Norm]
Alex: So there are two issues, the ability to throw an exception, and if I load this, then what happens with optional options.
17:00:37 [Norm]
Norm: I think the question of optional options are fully covered by the spec.
17:00:52 [Norm]
Henry: The only question we didn't answer was what we should do in the nested case.
17:01:05 [Norm]
...I think the simplest thing to do is just say that processors are allowed to reject this.
17:01:40 [Norm]
...Asking for complete consistency about all possilbe scenarios seems premature. We've got a consistent story that we know we want to work: if you import the library up front.
17:01:50 [Norm]
...Beyond that, I think we should just say that processors can reject it if they want.
17:01:56 [Norm]
Mohamed: I'm ok with that.
17:02:04 [Norm]
Vojtech: I'm ok too.
17:02:30 [Norm]
Proposal: Processors are allowed to reject the import of a V.next library if it occurs "too late", where too late is implementation defined.
17:03:24 [Norm]
Accepted.
17:04:20 [Norm]
Norm will produce a CR draft. Henry will arrange a transition call.
17:04:30 [Norm]
Adjourned
17:04:33 [Zakim]
-PGrosso
17:04:35 [Zakim]
-Norm
17:04:35 [Zakim]
-richard
17:04:36 [Zakim]
-Vojtech
17:04:37 [Zakim]
-MoZ
17:04:41 [Zakim]
-Alex_Milowski
17:05:00 [Zakim]
-Ht
17:05:01 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
17:05:02 [Zakim]
Attendees were +95247aaaa, MoZ, Vojtech, Ht, PGrosso, richard, Alex_Milowski, Norm
17:05:25 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
17:27:25 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world visible
17:27:25 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'set logs world visible', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:27:31 [Norm]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
17:27:41 [Norm]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:27:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/13-xproc-minutes.html Norm
18:32:20 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
18:32:56 [Norm]
RRSAgent, bye
18:32:56 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items